Register here

Author Topic: Postwar Burnelli Designs  (Read 19129 times)

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.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10785
  • 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: 2483
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.