Register here

Author Topic: Postwar Burnelli Designs  (Read 19130 times)

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.