Register here

Author Topic: Postwar Burnelli Designs  (Read 19153 times)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Postwar Burnelli Designs
« on: August 26, 2008, 04:37:32 am »
Hi,

who know more info about those two Burnelli projects ?,notice that the first
aircraft was different from CBY-03,a real aircraft.
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Burnelli_AIAA.pdf

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2008, 04:09:21 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2008, 09:40:17 am »
Study II is the Burnelli GB-171 presented to the Pentagon in 1961.

(AAHS Journal Spring 1997)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2009, 03:11:02 pm »
Artist's impression of Burnelli GB-888A (1964)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 11:46:09 pm by Triton »

Offline The Artist

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 520
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2010, 09:34:00 pm »
I found these two pages from an old Air Trails magazine (August 1951) in my scrap files. This seemed to be a better place for them than the newer Flying Flattops thread.
"Thank you for summing that up."

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2010, 10:56:49 pm »
Artist's concept of Burnelli fighter design circa 1948.

Source: http://www.teuton.org/dbarnett/strange.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2010, 11:14:24 pm »
Artist's concept of Burnelli aircraft appearing in Mechanix Illustrated December 1946.

Source: http://www.burnelli.com/wp/

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2010, 11:38:00 am »
Artist's concept of Burnelli car ferry circa 1952.

Source:http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono2.htm

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2011, 07:59:25 pm »
I had not seen these Boeing designs either.  They are very cool for the time.  The thing is, they are still tube and wing designs without tails.  Here is one Boeing design that deviates from the tube and wing in a radical and proven way.  Check out this report from Boeing's archive of wind tunnel models.  http://www.king5.com/news/business/Boeing-planes-that-never-flew-116515378.html   

The page is titled "Boeing planes that never flew."  Before starting the video you'll see the plane I'm referring to, the International Husky or Boeing 754.  The w/t tests showed beyond doubt that this design could carry 2 to 2 1/2 times the load of a 767 over the same distance using the same amount of fuel, e.g., at least twice the fuel economy per pound of cargo.

The only reason this was never built was that the owner of the design, The Burnelli Company, requested that Boeing pay a 1% licencing fee for use of the patented design.  Boeing refused to pay and dismantled the airframe, of which they had already invested several million dollars.  Never made any sense to me why they would do such a thing.  This happened in the mid-70s and cost, not so much Boeing but all air cargo companies that used Boeing planes, BILLIONS in profits in the decades since.  What a waste.

You can see the history of The Burnelli Company that dates back to the first "Lifting Fuselage" aircraft of 1921 by Texas aviation pioneer, Vincent Justus Burnelli, to his last design before his death in 1964.  Go to burnelli.com and check it out.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 03:39:30 am by Stargazer2006 »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2011, 05:15:10 am »
The only reason this was never built was that the owner of the design, The Burnelli Company, requested that Boeing pay a 1% licencing fee for use of the patented design.  Boeing refused to pay and dismantled the airframe, of which they had already invested several million dollars.  Never made any sense to me why they would do such a thing.  This happened in the mid-70s and cost, not so much Boeing but all air cargo companies that used Boeing planes, BILLIONS in profits in the decades since.  What a waste.

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to this forum. The Burnelli patent question is one that has always created heated debate, as the defenders of Burnelli's designs are often viewed by some (even on this forum) as blind fundamentalists... Their reasoning is: "If that kind of configuration was so good, how come it has never made it to production form on any aircraft?" I for one have always given Burnelli's work a lot of credit and I'm glad you can finally confirm that, not only the Boeing Model 754 was INDEED built to a Burnelli patent design, but also that Boeing was a little more serious about the program that with many other projects.

Yet if I follow what you said here, Boeing had already BUILT a Model 754 airframe???

I have never heard about this before. Do you have any evidence of this? I sure would love to see pics.

As to the question of the fee, I agree that it makes absolutely NO sense that a mere 1% would be enough to make Boeing shy out and let millions go to waste. Makes me wonder if there wasn't something else there.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2011, 02:08:27 pm »
You can see the history of The Burnelli Company that dates back to the first "Lifting Fuselage" aircraft of 1921 by Texas aviation pioneer, Vincent Justus Burnelli, to his last design before his death in 1964.  Go to burnelli.com and check it out.

One would appear have much better luck with http://www.burnelli.com Much different IP addresses and response.

Name:    burnelli.com
Address:  109.164.249.126


Name:    www.burnelli.com
Address:  69.89.20.57

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2011, 09:46:22 am »
Thanks for the input Stargazer.  Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on your question. 
 
Here's proof of Boeing's interest in making this plane for Cargolux.  http://www.airlinereporter.com/2011/03/video-a-look-at-boeing-planes-never-made-in-the-archive/  This wind tunnel model of Boeing's International Husky was recently uncovered late 2010 by a reporter doing a story on Boeing's model archive.  You don't spend thousands of dollars to build a scaled, wind tunnel model unless you have more than a passing interest in a plane design.  This model gave Boeing the numbers that are posted here... http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cnsp8a.htm  These came from an anonymous, Boeing employee who was sympathetic to the Burnelli Company.
 
Of course it can't be proven that Boeing had already started the mockup.  The reason the Burnelli Company found out about the build is that a friend of the Burnelli Company was also a friend of someone working on the Boeing mockup.  This person invited his friend to see what they were doing at Boeing.  This person recognized the frame as a Burnelli design and called the Burnelli Company soon after his visit to Boeing.  As a result, there was the patent dispute plus Boeing didn't want to be associated with the negative history of Burnelli.  Also know that Boeing makes profit from selling planes, no matter what plane they sell.  It was the customer, not Boeing, that lost in this poor decision.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2011, 10:53:06 am »

 You don't spend thousands of dollars to build a scaled, wind tunnel model unless you have more than a passing interest in a plane design. 

 
Do you have any idea how many wind tunnel models have been made? Specifically, how many *thousands* of configurations that have been tested, and then never developed any further?
 


Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Nik

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 382
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2011, 11:05:45 am »
IIRC, Burnelli designs had ample tail and elevator surface, set at adequate 'moment', perhaps to offset the tendency of any wing-body to side-slip or 'swerve', especially in ground effect...


Though I'm no fundamentalist, I'm still sorry that the only 'Burnelli' which saw a lot of 'real' work was the licensed one-off used by DeGaulle to rally the FreeFrench...


Hmm. If Burnelli did fall out with Boeing, it might account for the virtual garlic nailed over many doors...

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2011, 01:57:04 pm »
Yes, many wind tunnel models never made it past that stage.  With all those models you'll find some history of their existance and the testing done on them.  The thing with the Boeing/Burnelli story is, Boeing denied anything more than a passing interest yet there is the model, the antisipatory cover of Cargolux's 1975 Annual Report as well as the performance advantage report shown by Boeing's own testing.  Why deny so much when your own results show a better than 2 to 1 payload capacity using the same amount of fuel?  None of this ever made any sense, no matter how Boeing tried to spin it.
 
All this is about the past anyway.  Boeing screwed up and everyone involved lost out.  I'm looking to bring Burnelli's work back into the open to have some current testing done.  This will show if Burnelli was right or not.  If anyone is willing to take the time to look at the data from Burnelli's earlier work, they will see that every plane he built out performed every similarly powered and sized tube and wing design in every case.  This should hold true today.  Testing is needed to make this clear.  This has actually already been done by NASA.
 
Look at NASA's X-43B compared to Burnelli's GB-888A.  Sr Aeronautical Engineer, Richard Wood did.  In his comparison, he used the word "remarkable" to describe his shock of the design similarities.  Lifting fuselage, flat sides, canard.  Here's Mr. Wood's paper on Burnelli... http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Burnelli_AIAA.pdf  Before he stumbled onto the Burnelli site, he had no clue of Burnelli or his designs.  Ever since, he has championed Burnelli's work as the influencing factor in many later and more famous designers.  I believe that most detractors of Burnelli's work only have uninformed opinions.  "I think it would be draggy" or "It looks like he forgot this rule or that."  If they were to research the Burnelli history, as Rick Wood did, I'm sure they would come to the same conclusion.  This man was one of the creative aviation pioneers who is greatly underappreciated and almost lost to history.  I'm workin' on it. 
 
My latest WIP, a supercritical body/wing Burnelli design, attached.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 05:22:51 pm by Burnelli Support Group »

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2011, 03:53:25 pm »
The thing with the Boeing/Burnelli story is, Boeing denied anything more than a passing interest...

An odd claim given that Boeing not only did promotional PR stuff back in the day, but also has/had the "Husky" models prominantly on display in the reading room of their archive.
 
 
Quote
Why deny so much when your own results show a better than 2 to 1 payload capacity using the same amount of fuel? 

Feel free to post a reference. Not a claim. A reference.
 
If the "lifting fuselage" concept was so clearly superior, it would be in use. Sure, the Burnelli fanboy crackpots would sit there and squawk, but that's hardly likely to be a big problem for American aircraft companies... and no problem *at* *all* for European, Japanese, Indian, Russian or Chinese aircraft companies. Where's the operational Tupolev "Burnelli?" The Chinese have zero interest in paying attention to patents or copyrights... just what works. So... where is *their* "Burnelli?" Where's the "Burnelli" Airbus?
 
Quote
Before he stumbled onto the Burnelli site, he had no clue of Burnelli or his designs.  Ever since, he has championed Burnelli's work as the influencing factor in many later and more famous designers.

This is what's known as "cognitive dissonance," the holding of two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
 
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2011, 04:57:27 pm »
Do such waves of wisdom often come from OrionBlaBla?  This is the typical response from those who think they know it all about aviation and design.  "If the lifting fuselage were so clearly superior, it would be in use."  Just as I said, a lack of knowledge of the subject with only empty opinions and insults to offer.  Obviously, he has not done his homework nor even read what was accomplished by the X-43 program.  The lifting fuselage IS in use and it is in use at the highest levels of aviation research and design.  Does he think NASA would use anything but the most superior design to travel at Mach 9.6?  Check out the X-51, lifting fuselage design. 
 
A crackpot of the highest order makes himself out to be the most knowledgeable over everyone else and strives to intimidate those who disagree.  Anyone else tired of listening to this blowhard type of response?  Opinion without knowledge is just hot air coming from an empty vessel.  Did OrionBlaBla say anything useful in his response?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2011, 05:29:56 pm »
Do such waves of wisdom often come from OrionBlaBla?

That's the level of your discourse, huh?
 
Quote
Does he think NASA would use anything but the most superior design to travel at Mach 9.6?  Check out the X-51, lifting fuselage design. 

Both the X-43 and X-51 are lifting body designs. Not Burnelli lifting fuselage designs.
 
Try again.
 
Try harder.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2011, 05:53:54 pm »
"Sure, the Burnelli fanboy crackpots would sit there and squawk"
 
And this is Your level of discourse?
 
One goes to a site looking for support in their design work, not insults and opinions that have no basis in reality.  So, you would have no work done on this design to see if the claims, and previous NACA tests, are valid?  You would rather brush it aside and believe your own opinions, and those of the very few I might add, over science and research?
 
Why are you be so adamantly opposed to Burnelli's work and proving or disproving this designer's worth?  Why would you want to put someone down who is seeking knowledge in aviation design?  Is this your way?
 
And by the way, I did reference the 2 to 1 payload capacity in a previous post.  Also, the X-43 and X-51 projects are made on a lifting fuselage design, not a lifting body design.  This is why the NASA engineer used the word striking in referencing their similarity.  If you'll read the paper by Richard Wood who was involved in the project, referenced in a previous post, you'll see that this is the case.
 
I mean, you can beleive it or not believe it but your belief does not change the fact that this engineer found Burnelli's work fascinating.  Are you saying you are more knowledgeable than a Sr Aeronautical Engineer at NASA? 

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2011, 06:08:02 pm »
"Sure, the Burnelli fanboy crackpots would sit there and squawk"
 
And this is Your level of discourse?

It is indeed. It was a general statement of fact based on years of watching discussions of the Burnelli designs very rapidly get turned into garbage by the conspiracy theorists. You, however, took it to mean a reference to yourself. Now, if you hear someone say the word "crackpot" and immediately think that it's a reference to you... shrug.

 
Quote
I did reference the 2 to 1 payload capacity in a previous post.

No, you did not. You made a *claim.* You did not post any documentation to back it up.
 
 
 
Quote
  Also, the X-43 and X-51 projects are made on a lifting fuselage design, not a lifting body design.

Sorry, no. In a lifting body design, the body does the lifting. In a Burnelli lifting fuselage design, the fuselage contributes to lift (and a whole lot to drag). In the X-43/-51, the lift is generated almost wholly by the body. The "wings" are virtual afterthoughts, used far more for stability than lift. While the X-43 does bear some vague resemblance to the Burnelli hypersonic design, it is cosmetic only. The Burnelli design features a fat draggy un-hypersonic fuselage married to very large wings (*extremely* large compared to those on the X-43).
 
If you wish to be taken seriously, here's your chance. Start posting links to NASA and NASA test reports that show conclusive proof of the superiority of the Burnelli design. Quoting conspiracy theory websites... is pointless.
 
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2011, 06:34:54 pm »
Let's calm down and figure this out - it's interesting !
 
I have put together some ideas. I may be way off. I also freely stole phrases
from some online sites.
 
A lifting body can be thought of as a fuselage with little or no conventional wing.
Lifting bodies generally minimize the drag and structure of a wing for subsonic,
supersonic, and hypersonic flight, or, spacecraft re-entry. All of these flight
regimes pose challenges for proper flight stability. Indeed the seeming presence
of smaller wings or wings canted at interesting angles, on lifting bodies are
more of an attempt at control than lift.
 
A Burnelli Lifting Fuselage is a concept of turning the aircraft‘s fuselage from
dead weight to be lifted by the wings, to an aerofoil contributing its own lift.
But a Burnelli Lifting Fuselage seems to have significant seperate wing area. This
design philosophy seems to be oriented at carrying cargo within the
fuselage and having such a fuselage contribute lift. This idea should reduce
the wing area required than that required by a non lifting fuselage.
 
If the fuselage integrates well into the shape of the wing one may have a flying
wing. There cargo can be integrated within the wing or the wing can be thinner
for no cargo. These designs can reduce drag due to no typical fuselage or tail
section.
 
X-51 is a hypersonic waverider where the vehicle leading edge is designed to ride on top
of a shock wave intentionally designed for that purpose using one of several schemes.
High pressure air (from flowing thrugh the shock(s)) is also trapped under the vehicle
leading edge by the shock(s) and contributes to higher vehicle lift.
 
All of the above seem to be different approaches.
 
Comments appreciated.
 

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2011, 06:47:22 pm »
I didn't come here to incite anyone to attack Burnelli supporters.  It seems I have.  My intent was to start a discussion on the possibilities of Burnelli's design, not the negatives.
 
Here's the reference to the Boeing numbers if you care to look.  This model gave Boeing the numbers that are posted here... http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cnsp8a.htm  These came from an anonymous, Boeing employee who was sympathetic to the Burnelli Company.   You can also reference this site... http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Burnelli.htm 
 
Oh yes, this came from conspiracy sites so these numbers can't be true.  Also, the X-43B is what is referenced by Rick Wood.  If you actually looked at the paper he wrote you would see that the wings and canard are just a prominent, if not more, as Burnelli's GB-888A.  But, you are convinced Burnelli followers are idiots and you are right so this discussion is over. 
 
I've come across your kind before.  You have nothing to offer in a positive way to the discussion.  Funny, in the 5+ years I've pursued this,  I've gained the support of people in positions of knowledge and prestige at Northrop Grumman, University of Texas Aerospace Department, NASA and the Georgia Tech.  Interesting that these people in-the-know would show interest in what I'm trying to accomplish even though I have very little background in aviation.  But I can see that you are smarter than me or any of these people.
 
Anyone else willing to discuss this on a rational level or are we in fear of repurcussions from BlamBlam?  Mr. OrionBlamBlam has proven himself to be highly prejudiced and very closed minded on the subject.  I'm sure he will have a great quip to finish this discussion.  Wait for it...

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2011, 07:52:53 pm »
Here's the reference to the Boeing numbers if you care to look.  This model gave Boeing the numbers that are posted here... http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/cnsp8a.htm  These came from an anonymous, Boeing employee ...

One more time: please cite an actual reference, not a claim. What NACA or NASA wind tunnel reports do you have to offer?
 
 
Quote
Also, the X-43B is what is referenced by Rick Wood. 

Never flew.
 
 
Quote
I've come across your kind before.

As I have yours. In fact, I checked back on my blog and, yup, you wandered by it a few years ago and offered up the same angry evidence-free "arguements" you have here.
 
Quote
You have nothing to offer in a positive way to the discussion. 

Really? And what is not positive about "You've made a claim, now back it up with actual evidence?"
 
Quote
Funny, in the 5+ years I've pursued this,  I've gained the support of people in positions of knowledge and prestige at Northrop Grumman, University of Texas Aerospace Department, NASA and the Georgia Tech.

GREAT!! Now's the perfect time for you to present the numerous wind tunnel and CFD analysis reports that these experts have *surely* produced.
 
Quote
Anyone else willing to discuss this on a rational level or are we in fear of repurcussions from BlamBlam?

Feh. Ain't nobody here afraid of "repurcussions" from me.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2011, 08:03:42 pm »
A Burnelli Lifting Fuselage is a concept of turning the aircraft‘s fuselage from
dead weight to be lifted by the wings, to an aerofoil contributing its own lift.
But a Burnelli Lifting Fuselage seems to have significant seperate wing area. This
design philosophy seems to be oriented at carrying cargo within the
fuselage and having such a fuselage contribute lift. This idea should reduce
the wing area required than that required by a non lifting fuselage.

That's the theory. But what yopu wind up with is an aircraft optimized for carrying large-volume cargo, not one optimzed for efficiency. The fuselage section is indeed a wing... a wing of extremely short aspect ratio. Low AR wings have poor lift to drag ratios compared to high AR wings; this is of course why the most efficient aircraft - sailplanes - have extremely high AR wings. You can tinker with the stubby wing to increase L/D, such as adding endplates (i.e. tip fins), but this is still just a slight improvement on a bad wing.
 
The Blended Wing Body, which some Burnelli fans claim is a derivative of Burnelli's design, gets past this by extensive fairing of the thick wing center section with the thin wing outboard panels. By doing so, the center and outer wings are unified into a single wing, where the Burnelli concept has two distinct and separate wings.
 
The Lockheed Constellation had a lifting fuselage, although one of *exceedingly* low aspect ratio. It was in fact of circular cross section like any other airliner, but with the "circles" arranged in such a way that longitudinal cross-sections of the fuselage were passable airfoils. While this produced an elegant looking design, it was expensive to make and didn't really add anything, certainly not enough to be worth the bother.
 
To your larger point: there is almost no fundamental difference betweena  "flying wing" and a "lifting body" apart from aspect ratio. Take the plan view of a B-49, for example, and compress it along the span by a factor of five, say. Suddenly, you have yourself a lifting body.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2011, 08:47:33 pm »
shockonlip... "If the fuselage integrates well into the shape of the wing one may have a flying
wing. There cargo can be integrated within the wing or the wing can be thinner
for no cargo. These designs can reduce drag due to no typical fuselage or tail
section."

Regarding reduced drag, General Hap Arnold wrote of this in a 1939 report to the Secretary of War on Burnelli's design being considered for the next U.S. bomber prior to WWII.  "The coefficient of drag is the lowest known for any useful airplane today." See the full report and the general's statements here...   http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/arnold.htm  His final statement in this report shows his support for this design.  "In my opinion it is essential, in the interest of national defense, that this procurement be made."  Coming from the Supreme Leader of the Army/Air Corps, an aviation genius in his own right, this was a confirmation of the superiority of Burnelli's design over all the competition.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2011, 09:26:16 pm »
Some direct comparisons, based on similar engines. Data taken from Wiki.
 
Burnelli UB14                     
Engines:          2 P&W Hornets (750 hp ea)
Empty wt:       9200 lbs   
Gross wt:        17,500 lbs 
Max Speed:     210 mph
Range:            1240 mi   
Sevice ceiling:  22,000 feet   
 
Lockheed Model 14
Engines:          2 Wright SGR-1820-F62 760 hp ea
Empty wt:       10,750 lbs
Gross wt:        17,500 lbs
Max Speed:     250 mph
Range:            2125 mi
Sevice ceiling:  24,500 feet
 
 
Martin B-10B
Engines:          2 × Wright R-1820-33 775 hp each
Empty wt:       9681 lbs
Gross wt:        16,400 lbs
Max Speed:     213 mph
Range:           1240 mi
Sevice ceiling:  24,200 feet
 
WINNER: Lockheed
-----------------
Burnelli CBY-3                     
Engines:         2 Pratt & Whitney Twin-Wasp R-1830  1,200 hp each
Empty wt:      16,900 lbs   
Gross wt:       27,000 lbs
Capacity:       24 passengers
Max Speed:     237 mph
Range:           1025 mi   
Sevice ceiling:  24,000 feet   
 
Douglas C-47 Skytrain
Engines:          2 Pratt & Whitney Twin-Wasp R-1830  1,200 hp each
Empty wt:     18,135 lbs   
Gross wt:       31,000 lbs 
Capacity:        28 troops
Max Speed:     224 mph
Range:            1600 mi   
Sevice ceiling:  26,400 feet   
 
WINNER: Douglas
 
For such a *vastly* and *obviously* better design, the performance of *actual* Burnelli aircraft was unspectacular.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline red admiral

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 536
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2011, 12:41:32 pm »
Regarding reduced drag, General Hap Arnold wrote of this in a 1939 report to the Secretary of War on Burnelli's design being considered for the next U.S. bomber prior to WWII.  "The coefficient of drag is the lowest known for any useful airplane today."

Drag coefficient is Drag / qS, with S as the reference area. In a conventional tube and wing, the reference area is the projected wing area, whereas with a Burnelli design you've also got the large fuselage area included in the reference area. Unsurprisingly, dividing Drag by a much larger S results in a smaller drag coefficient. However, the absolute drag is rather large in the Burnelli configuration - which is why you see much larger powerplants on Burnelli designs. Having to put bigger engines on the design impacts on the total performance of the design. Sure, it is probable that the Burnelli configuration will be the best choice for some flight profiles, but those aren't today's airliner style flight profiles.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2011, 03:42:40 pm »
it is probable that the Burnelli configuration will be the best choice for some flight profiles...

For some missions, a Burnelli configuration would likely be *awesome.* The Husky cargo carrier, for instance... a design with easy roll-on, roll-off of standard cargo containers would certainly be of some value. But the design would almost certainly have to be a non-pressurized design of realatively low speed. For flying around the crappier parts of the world at lower altitudes, this might be just fine. Unless someone's taking potshots with SAMs and the like. But even then a Burnelli would likely be more capable of sustaining damage, and with the engines above the fuselage, it'd be less likely to take a manpad up the tailpipe. A Burnelli competitor to the C-130 seems feasible. I get a warm fuzzy feeling contemplating a turboprop "Husky" configured as a gunship.
 
But for a near-transonic design hauling passengers cheaply and in comfort? Not bloody likely.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2011, 04:18:21 pm »
Just to reply to the CBY-3/C-47 comparison.  The CBY-3 was actually built to compete with the original DC-3 design and could carry 3200 lbs more for the same distance at 20mph more cruise speed.  Wiki ref.  The C-47 was a later design with upgrades from the original competition.
 
Here's a great Army report from 1962 praising the Burnelli over two, competing De Havilland designs.  Remember, the Burnelli is the CBY-3 from the mid 40's, competing with planes designed and built in the late 50's/early 60's.
 
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/pdf/compeval.pdf   Ref: The full Army report.

1962 Report: A COMPARITIVE EVALUATION OF MEDIUM TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT   Prepared By: U.S. ARMY TRANSPORTATION MATERIAL COMMAND

Multiple, interchangeable names were used in this report.  The Burnelli design is also referenced as Fairchild and has one plane, the M-258 also referenced as M-258-K, J and N or Fairchild Friendship.  De Havilland has two planes, the AC-1A, also referred to as Caribou I, and the AC-II, also referred to as Caribou II.
 
Quotes from Army report:
Pg. 16
De Havilland faces a vastly greater undertaking than does the Fairchild (Burnelli) and accordingly the risks to the U.S. are far greater in purchasing the Caribou II.

Pg. 44
Finally, is shown, the Fairchild Friendship (Burnelli) with the T-64 engine, known as the M-258-K.  It should be noted that this aircraft possess all the performance of this group, together with a range capability and payload which can be achieved by none of the others.  It is interesting to note that his aircraft can deliver itself without special fuel tanks to trans-oceanic areas and, thus, carry a substantial portion of its own support as its cargo for such missions.

Pg. 45
The Fairchild (Burnelli) is obviously an aircraft of greater versatility, and although not shown here, it is an aircraft of higher speed.  This last feature increases its total transport capability to an even greater degree than is shown by the area under the curve.
 
Why they didn't use the Burnelli design after all this praise...?  Go figure.
 

Offline unclejim

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2011, 04:48:39 pm »
"Just to reply to the CBY-3/C-47 comparison.  The CBY-3 was actually built to compete with the original DC-3 design and could carry 3200 lbs more for the same distance at 20mph more cruise speed.  Wiki ref.  The C-47 was a later design with upgrades from the original competition."


Balderdash. There was NO competition refarding the genesis of the DC-3, American Airlines wanted a wider sleeper version of the DC-2, and Douglas responded with DC-3. Simple as that.

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2011, 05:41:03 pm »
Think this would've been a great gunship for WWII.  A  modified version.  Then the real mockup of the bomber that never was.  Sat out back of the Canadian Car and Foundry through the war.
 
No, there was no military "competition" with the DC-3 but the CBY-3 was made to compete in the open market.  There wasn't much competition since surplus DC-3s were being sold for only $5,000.  Can't compete with that no matter how good your design is.  How about the 'real' competition with the De Havilland?  Seems pretty amazing that a 15 year old design could even hope to compete.
 
 

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2011, 06:13:33 pm »
Here's a great Army report from 1962 praising the Burnelli over two, competing De Havilland designs. 
 
Multiple, interchangeable names were used in this report.  The Burnelli design is also referenced as Fairchild and has one plane, the M-258 also referenced as M-258-K, J and N or Fairchild Friendship. ...Why they didn't use the Burnelli design after all this praise...?  Go figure.

What The Hell.
 
The Fairchild design referenced in this report is explicity called the M-258. We have a thread on that desing, complete with pretty pictures:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5854
it is *not* a Burnelli design. It's not even close.
 
What is more: the only place in the report where the name "Burnelli" seems to appear (as "Bernelli") is on the last page, page 55. What's interesting about that graph: it is done in a style quite unlike all the other graphs in the report. The other graphs have hand-written notations... this one is typed.
 
So... what do we have here?
1: Performance data ascribed to Burnelli when it's not a Burnelli design
2: Quotes that appear to praise Burnelli when they don't even mention the concept
3: A page that appears to have been added on after the fact
 
Hmmm...
 
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2011, 06:18:13 pm »
Just to reply to the CBY-3/C-47 comparison.  The CBY-3 was actually built to compete with the original DC-3 design and could carry 3200 lbs more for the same distance at 20mph more cruise speed.  Wiki ref.  The C-47 was a later design with upgrades from the original competition.

Irrelevant. Note that the CBY-3 and the C-47 are put head-to-head for a damned good reason: they are equipped with the exact same engines ( two Pratt & Whitney Twin-Wasp R-1830s) and designed for basically the same mission. Since the Burnelli and the Douglas were given the same engine - thus the same engine performance as far as fuel consumption, power torque, etc -aircraft performance can be compared directly. And the CBY comes out the less impressive of the two.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2011, 07:53:32 pm »
Total BS.  The reference made with the "picture" of an M-258 is a stinking model that someone said is an M-258.  Show me a "real" plane.
 
Saying the last page of the report looks different so its obviously a fake sounds more than a little paranoid.  Speaking of conspiracies.  Besides, anyone who might fake something like this to promote Burnelli would surely spell Burnelli's name right.  DUH!
 
Also, there's no way the plane pictured would have the capabilities shown in the report.  It looks pretty much the same as the De Havillad planes.  You'd have to carry external fuel tanks for any extended mission and the report clearly stated that the plane being tested had no need for this. 
 
The plastic model of the M-258 is bogus and so is the assumption that the report is altered somehow.  I suppose you can twist anything if you want to.  I suppose you could prove the report is bogus rather than just imply its bogus.

Offline Burnelli Support Group

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2011, 08:10:52 pm »
Numbers are also typed on graph on page 46 of the Army report.  Guess that was overlooked to prove a point.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7071
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2011, 08:29:28 pm »
Total BS.  The reference made with the "picture" of an M-258 is a stinking model that someone said is an M-258.  Show me a "real" plane.

Oh, WOW. So now the National Air and Space Museum is involved in some devious scheme to replace information on the Fairchild M-258 "Burnelli" design with carefully faked-up data and images of another aircraft configuration? And they're in cahoots with Andreas Parsch and the F27 Friendship Society in the Netherlands? And even the authors of the report must have been in on it, as on page 44 we have: "Finally, is shown, the Fairchild Friendship with the T-64 engine, known as the M-258-K."
 
There's no length that you conspiracy theorists won't go to.
 
Quote
The plastic model of the M-258 is bogus ...

What are you basing that on? And what are you basing the supposition that the M-258 was a Burnelli design on? Where else in the report is Burnelli or "Bernelli" mentioned?
 
I admit I missed page 46. So my third issue with your report is withdrawn. But the first two issues stand. Until you can come up with some evidence that the M-258 mentioned in the report was a Burnelli design and *not* the militarized F27 design that it has been accepted as, I will be forced to assume that you - or whoever it is you believed - just made this up.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 08:54:01 pm by Orionblamblam »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #37 on: October 02, 2011, 10:12:29 pm »
I didn't come here to incite anyone to attack Burnelli supporters.  It seems I have.  My intent was to start a discussion on the possibilities of Burnelli's design, not the negatives.

So do it. Despite the aggressive and offensive form of the posts Orionblamblam sometimes do, he made a very good and reasonable points - support your claims with the evidence. We want the verifiable evidence. Not claims. I can say that Elvis is still alive and you can cite me as the reference, but this kind of argument has not any value. So if you claim that the Burnelli designs were superior and better for the missions they were designed for compared to its competitors, name in which area it was better and support it with the evidence. NASA reports, AIAA papers, first hand wind tunnel model tests reports and such. "Anonymous Boeing employee" and the like are hardly verifiable facts.

Without being aggressive, I am the man who always wanted to know and never wanted to believe. And I think there are a lot of similar people here.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10794
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2011, 12:12:44 am »
What we have here is a *classic* case of conspiracy thinking.

This PDF is a comparison of the Fairchild M-258 proposal, a militarized version of the Fokker F-27 Friendship, against the de Havilland Canada DHC-5 / AC-2 Caribou II proposal. Both proposals are turboprop engined. de Havilland DHC-4 / AC-1 Caribou data is included as a baseline comparison.

Thats it.  Its very clear, no ambiguity is possible.

For reasons that aren't entirely clear, the last graph appears to be an inclusion from a different report. It compares the de Havilland AC-1 Caribou to a "Bernelli Airplane".

The dotted "Bernelli" data has no relevance to the rest of this report,  and the AC-1 lines duplicate information presented in previous graphs.

Therefore I assume it is a page from an earlier report, a comparison of the AC-1 and a Burnelli proposal, which had been used as the source for the AC-1 data presented in previous graphs, which got accidentally included in this later report on the AC-2 & M-258.

Instead, we are supposed to throw out the evidence *present in every other page of the report* that proves that M-258 is a lightly modified F-27 and assume its a Bernoulli design. No. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Now, I'm not certain why this the graph is included in the report, but it can be examined on its own merit, once we accept it was accidentally included in this report and is not connected to the M-258 graphs.

Taken at face value, it seems to show that, at some time, a report was prepared about a Burnelli design proposal with R2600 engines which promised better payload/range performance than the AC-1 Caribou. Without the rest of the report, that is all we can say. If the report it came from concluded that the Burnelli proposal's predicted range/payload was unsound, then this graph means nothing. If it concluded the proposal was sound, then it was discarded on other grounds. We can't tell from one graph.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 12:20:33 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2011, 12:21:05 am »
>
Quote
Total BS.  The reference made with the "picture" of an M-258 is a stinking model that someone said is an M-258.  Show me a "real" plane.

The "Fairchild Friendship" was simply the Fokker Friendship when built and marketed in the U.S. The M-258 was simply a proposed military variant of it. There is no logic why the name "Friendship" could have been given by Fairchild to two completely different transport models in exactly the same timespan... so, yes, I would agree with OBB in this case that the M-258 most certainly WASN'T related to Burnelli in any way.

Offline royabulgaf

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 385
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2011, 05:22:01 pm »
A few points I would like to add- I do not want to get into the tomato/tomahto quarrel about lifting bodies vs lifting fuselages.  However, the aerodynamic and heat regime of NASA's lifting bodies and waveriders is completely different from the 100-250 mph environment the Burnelli's designs operated in.  The appearance is just coincidence. 

Regarding hauling cargo containers by air:  Do you know how much those things WEIGH?  I suppose it would come in handy on occasion, but I can't think of when. 

I think the reason airlines and airliner manufacturers never really got into airfoil shaped fuselages is the hassle of redesign.  If you need a larger aircraft, you just extrude a few extra feet of the appropriate fuselage.  The interior doesn't have to be altered, there is no wasted space to store standard airliner containers, and no wierd forced perspective inside that might make passengers queasy.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2485
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2011, 07:19:13 pm »
A few points I would like to add- I do not want to get into the tomato/tomahto quarrel about lifting bodies vs lifting fuselages.  However, the aerodynamic and heat regime of NASA's lifting bodies and waveriders is completely different from the 100-250 mph environment the Burnelli's designs operated in.  The appearance is just coincidence. 

Regarding hauling cargo containers by air:  Do you know how much those things WEIGH?  I suppose it would come in handy on occasion, but I can't think of when. 

I think the reason airlines and airliner manufacturers never really got into airfoil shaped fuselages is the hassle of redesign.  If you need a larger aircraft, you just extrude a few extra feet of the appropriate fuselage.  The interior doesn't have to be altered, there is no wasted space to store standard airliner containers, and no wierd forced perspective inside that might make passengers queasy.

Part of it is also psychology. passengers tend not to like something, even if it is better, if it is different. It's a simple fact that rear facing seats are much better from a safety standpoint, but test after test has demonstrated that passengers don't like them. They don't want to see where they've been, they want to see where they're going.

Of course, the one thing that will change the basic aircraft configuration is profit. Better fuel efficiency means more profit/less costs for the operator. That's why BWB is now being seriously considered. Airlines will find a way to change the psychology it means more profit/less cost. I don't believe the Burnelli designs ever really improved that dynamic.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2011, 12:26:35 am »
Part of it is also psychology. passengers tend not to like something, even if it is better, if it is different.

I absolutely agree on that. Hence my reserves about the BWB design going commercial any time before the end of this century. It is the same as what I call the "suit and tie syndrome." Most people will consider that if you want to do business, you've just GOT TO wear them. If you don't, you will be looked upon as an eccentric, or be deemed as less serious or reliable. Even though it was originally just one trend like many others before it, it has stuck for over a century and eradicated all other forms of formal dress. The Boeing 707 was created in 1954 (following German designs of the previous decade) and for 60 years or so it has been considered as the only viable shape for an airliner. People go for the least challenging solutions because it reassures them.

In previous centuries, fashion truly evolved because the kings and courts set the example. They dressed in the latest, most outrageous fashion and imposed a style. But no more. And in the first 30 years of aviation, aircraft builders came up with all sorts of different shapes and configurations and proved that they were feasible. And airlines would buy them! No more.

How very sad!

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2011, 01:35:17 am »

 You don't spend thousands of dollars to build a scaled, wind tunnel model unless you have more than a passing interest in a plane design. 

Do you have any idea how many wind tunnel models have been made? Specifically, how many *thousands* of configurations that have been tested, and then never developed any further?

...Yeah, but you and I would both give a certain someone's left nut to be able to dig through those trash bins at Langley and rescue all the wind tunnel models they scrapped when the main development phase was completed. Some of them survived here and there, and were sent to some of the other NASA centers for visitor's center display. I know the scale landing skis test model for the dry lake version of Gemini - El Kabong II - is currently on display over in one of the buildings at JSC, and one of the Shuttle aluminum wind test models is sitting just across from the Skylab 1G Trainer at Space Center Disney. And IIRC - I'll have to dig out the old photo disk - one of the "double cone" five-legged LM concepts was also on display in one of the other buildings, next to three or four different Shuttle concept models in both metal and craftsman-finished wood.

...Of course, the rest of you kids all know that a bunch of the Langley test films are being capped and uploaded to YouTube, right? Do a search on "NASA Langley", and you should find at least a hundred different B&W clips, mostly from Mercury and Gemini development, with a few color films here and there. They're silent films, which means in the long run they'll only be wanker bait for Space Historians like the rest of us here. Still, I wouldn't mind having the job of digitizing those films, as I've run a film chain for a similar purpose of doing "reverse kinescopes" of 16mm and 35mm films to 3/4" and 1" Beta-1. Granted, with "Stumpy" travel is limited these days, but if offered the job I'd seriously consider the move to Langley to live with the "Nacka-Nuts"  B)

...Here, just a few examples of the Langley films that can be found on YouTube:



Parachute Recovery Tests of a B-58 Model Airplane














...Enjoy. I know *I* have!

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2011, 01:55:39 am »
  My intent was to start a discussion on the possibilities of Burnelli's design, not the negatives.
 


And you have indeed done that. However, "possibilities" aren't facts and the negatives of a design figure into its actual practicality. Burnelli type fuselages do have some advantages for niche applications, but for most uses the negatives outweigh the benefits.

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2011, 11:14:59 am »

Total BS.  The reference made with the "picture" of an M-258 is a stinking model that someone said is an M-258.  Show me a "real" plane.

Perhaps YOU should go first? Note that in the cited "report" there is NO mention of what each aircraft LOOKS like and NO specifications that the "Friendship" is a "Burnelli" type aircraft. In fact page 9 shows that the Fairchild aircraft has a LONGER and NARROWER cargo compartment than the other two aircraft. This does not in any way fit with the "standard" Burnelli aircraft layout.
 
Similarly page 15 points out that "Basic to this situation is the Fairchild possesion of actual airplanes very similar to those proposed to  the Army." Which "Burnelli" aircraft did Fairchild produce?

Both the inclusion of this "report" and your statement "Why they didn't use the Burnelli design after all this praise...?  Go figure." show a complete lack of research! The report CLEARLY states that despite the low-capability of the Caribou-1 Aircraft the ARMY did not have enough justification to proceed with replacing it with a new aircraft.
 
Even MORE daming is the very FACT that this report is in no way even RELATED to the Burnelli design for aircraft and it's inclusion on a site supposedly showing active "supression" of the Burnelli "Lifting-Fuselage" concept smacks of conspiricy mongering of the worst sort.
 
There ARE in fact NACA and expert reports on the relative values of the Burnelli concept shown here:
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/supp1.htm
 
Yet it is the unmitigated, even eager response at each and every level of the "Air Crash" website specifically and most out-spoken Burnelli "supporters" to fall back onto a conspiriciy of suppression without factual support and mostly "hear-say" evidence that continues to keep any REAL support for advancing the Burnelli designs from making progress.
 
You say:
"I didn't come here to incite anyone to attack Burnelli supporters.  It seems I have.  My intent was to start a discussion on the possibilities of Burnelli's design, not the negatives."
 
Fine, step number one should be to NEVER use the Air Crash site as a reference and continue to refuse to refer to them until and unless they clean up the site and remove the false "data" and provide proven support for their acusations. (It's never going to happen but it is the only way they will ever learn to shake off Slick Goodlins paranoiac influances for good)
 
Number two: Admit the Burnelli Lifting Fuselage is NOT perfect for every role but has advantages both from a safety and operational stand points and MOVE ON!
(The majority of "supporters" can't seem to see past the idea of having everyone replace every type of aircraft with a Burnelli "design" despite the FACT that it has drawbacks when compared to more conventional aircraft bodies. But they they totally ignore applications where the Lifting-Fuselage would outright SHINE like applying it to Wing-In-Ground Effect vehicles)
 
Number three: Do you OWN damn fact checking and don't immediatly leap to the conclusion that someone else information is wrong. PROVE it's right or wrong by checking!

I personally feel the Burnelli designs have some interesting and practical applications they could be used for, but as long as its "supporters" are going to be nothing but "knee-jerk-conspiricy-nuts" who will neither listen to nor argue with reason and fact I'm going to get nowhere.

 
Randy

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2013, 06:05:55 pm »
A Burnelli airliner design I hadn't seen before:

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2014, 04:21:54 am »
Hi,


a strange old idea for emergency landing created by two inventors,D. Manfredi and A. Raiti
and supported by Vincent J. Burnelli,and it depended on used a parachute for only the fuselage
after throw away six parts,the twin tail,two wings and two engines.


page 85


http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=ayEDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=popular+science+1951&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y6MFVOLjAubW0QWLnIHgCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20science%201951&f=false

Offline bigvlada

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 369
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2014, 12:49:10 am »
Can't remember the name of the topic, but I seem to recall we had some talk on this subject, with passenger section of the commercial jet fuselage being ejected and then landing using parachutes.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2014, 03:16:39 am »
Can't remember the name of the topic, but I seem to recall we had some talk on this subject, with passenger section of the commercial jet fuselage being ejected and then landing using parachutes.


My dear Bigvlada,


I think it was in Theoretical and Speculative Projects section.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2015, 05:13:03 am »
Hi,


here is a two Bunelli Projects of 1952 and 1960,with their data.


FR 8/1963
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 11:23:30 pm by Jemiba »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #51 on: April 08, 2016, 05:42:51 am »
Via my dear Lark,

here is a Burnelli GB-888A design with some of its variants,also large and small lift body
freighter Projects.

Airliner Classics 11-2010

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #52 on: April 08, 2016, 05:44:04 am »
And;

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #54 on: February 26, 2017, 06:26:13 pm »
Wow, I missed out on the earlier "discussion" about the Burnelli design vs. XXX.

A few years back, the widow of a friend passed onto the Museum a healthy collection of miscellaneous material which happened to include a flight test report dated December 6, 1945 on the CBY-3 by the manufacturer, Canadian Car & Foundry.  The only direct comparison to the DC-3 was a single engine climb rate.  The scanned report is a big one at 181Mb - I'll see if I can pull some specific data from it worth sharing.  In the meantime, here's the 3 photos that were included with the report.

Enjoy the Day!  Mark
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 06:30:09 pm by Mark Nankivil »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2018, 07:44:56 am »

Offline Motocar

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 532
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2018, 08:06:14 am »
Some friend of the subject can help me locating the date of the publication of the cutaway appeared in the Flight magazine with the cutaway of the Burnelli, this appeared in the late thirties, I need the date to track the magazine on the web and its schematic cut Cunlife-Owen

Thanks in advance for any collaboration, Motocar
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 08:22:20 am by Motocar »

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2018, 07:51:43 am »
I recall seeing this cutaway - or one very much like it - in Aeroplane Monthly too. 

Enjoy the Day!  Mark

Offline Schneiderman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2018, 10:31:57 am »
I don't think this is from Flight, their article on the aircraft has a different cutaway. Maybe Aeroplane

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2018, 01:17:13 pm »
Hesham - here is the patent link and the drawings for the pinterest image.

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD169962?oq=ininventor:Vincent+ininventor:Burnelli

Enjoy the Day!  Mark

Offline Motocar

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 532
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #60 on: May 30, 2018, 03:58:18 am »
This cut appears in the catalog of cutaways published in Flight magazine, the ones that I locate in that same magazine are different from this, in fact some years ago I got it but do not pay attention to the date and now I am tracking again to see if the ubico, there are thousands of pages to review from the archive of the magazine ...! The cut that I saw recently in the archive is December 22, 1938, pages 3600 and 3601.

Here is the link to the file of Fligh magazine:

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/1939.html

sorry the off topic
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 04:11:17 am by Motocar »

Online Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #61 on: May 30, 2018, 10:49:22 am »
Maybe a fighter of 1953 ?.

That patent looks similar to the one shown in the Air Trails article about the flying aircraft carrier here
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13821.msg96765.html#msg96765.
That article tempted me to make a drawing of that proposal, though closer examination led to some
doubts about the seriousness, which you'll find in the notes file.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 02:18:50 am by Jemiba »
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #62 on: May 30, 2018, 12:11:06 pm »
Beautifull that way !

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #63 on: May 30, 2018, 12:31:11 pm »
Excellent.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #64 on: May 31, 2018, 06:32:32 am »
Wow,amazing find and drawings my dear Jemiba.

Offline foiling

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 269
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2018, 09:01:19 am »
Breath-takingly excellent drawings of a magnificent aircraft project. It is thrilling. Well done.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2018, 04:52:18 pm »
That article tempted me to make a drawing of that proposal, though closer examination led to some
doubts about the seriousness, which you'll find in the notes file.

Great job, Jemiba!

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Loadmaster renovation.
« Reply #67 on: December 05, 2018, 03:12:02 am »
http://warbirdsnews.com/aviation-museum-news/new-england-air-museum-restoration-update-burnelli-cby-3.html  I found an article in Flypast about the renovation and thought some might be interested.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
Re: Postwar Burnelli Designs
« Reply #68 on: December 05, 2018, 06:23:03 am »
Thanks! Good luck to them in their endeavour.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.