• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Postwar Burnelli Designs

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
416
Reaction score
7
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.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,621
Reaction score
34
royabulgaf said:
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.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
89
Sundog said:
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!
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
Orionblamblam said:
Burnelli Support Group said:

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:

Drogue Parachutes Tests for a Project Mercury Capsule Model

Parachute Recovery Tests of a B-58 Model Airplane


Model Tests of the McDonnel Design of Project Mercury Capsule

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKOHaZMtvLg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAeqi44cIpE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0QZpHKmYqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXB-PC-m1L8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c6z-wtFICY&feature=related

...Enjoy. I know *I* have!
 

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
107
Burnelli Support Group said:

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
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,027
Reaction score
973

Attachments

bigvlada

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
369
Reaction score
3
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.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,027
Reaction score
973
bigvlada said:
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.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,027
Reaction score
973
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
 

Attachments

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
161
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
 

Attachments

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
596
Reaction score
33
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
 

Attachments

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
161
I recall seeing this cutaway - or one very much like it - in Aeroplane Monthly too.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Schneiderman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
63
I don't think this is from Flight, their article on the aircraft has a different cutaway. Maybe Aeroplane
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
161
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
 

Attachments

Motocar

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
596
Reaction score
33
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
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,010
Reaction score
184

Attachments

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
7
Beautifull that way !
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
88

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,027
Reaction score
973
Wow,amazing find and drawings my dear Jemiba.
 

foiling

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
275
Reaction score
3
Breath-takingly excellent drawings of a magnificent aircraft project. It is thrilling. Well done.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
89
Jemiba said:
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!
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
902
Reaction score
73
Loadmaster renovation.

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.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
Thanks! Good luck to them in their endeavour.
 
Top