- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,552
- Reaction score
- 13,648
Postwar Burnelli Designs
- Thread starter hesham
- Start date
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,552
- Reaction score
- 13,648
- Joined
- 1 November 2009
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 410
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
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.
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.
Attachments
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
Artist's concept of Burnelli fighter design circa 1948.
Source: http://www.teuton.org/dbarnett/strange.htm
Artist's concept of Burnelli fighter design circa 1948.
Source: http://www.teuton.org/dbarnett/strange.htm
Attachments
Re: Re: Burnelli projects
Artist's concept of Burnelli aircraft appearing in Mechanix Illustrated December 1946.
Source: http://www.burnelli.com/wp/
Artist's concept of Burnelli aircraft appearing in Mechanix Illustrated December 1946.
Source: http://www.burnelli.com/wp/
Attachments
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
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.
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,137
- Reaction score
- 4,308
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
Burnelli Support Group said:
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
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
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.
Burnelli Support Group said:
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?
Nik
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 July 2009
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 1,003
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...
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...
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
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.
Attachments
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
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?
This is what's known as "cognitive dissonance," the holding of two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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?
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?
Burnelli Support Group said:
That's the level of your discourse, huh?
Both the X-43 and X-51 are lifting body designs. Not Burnelli lifting fuselage designs.
Try again.
Try harder.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
"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?
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?
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
No, you did not. You made a *claim.* You did not post any documentation to back it up.
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.
shockonlip
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 January 2008
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 50
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.
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.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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...
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...
Burnelli Support Group said:
One more time: please cite an actual reference, not a claim. What NACA or NASA wind tunnel reports do you have to offer?
Never flew.
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.
Really? And what is not positive about "You've made a claim, now back it up with actual evidence?"
GREAT!! Now's the perfect time for you to present the numerous wind tunnel and CFD analysis reports that these experts have *surely* produced.
Feh. Ain't nobody here afraid of "repurcussions" from me.
shockonlip said:
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.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
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.
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.
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.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,621
- Reaction score
- 1,894
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
red admiral said:
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.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
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.
unclejim
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 6 December 2010
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 4
"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.
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.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
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.
Attachments
Burnelli Support Group said:
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...
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
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.
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.
Burnelli Support Group
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 25 September 2008
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7
Numbers are also typed on graph on page 46 of the Army report. Guess that was overlooked to prove a point.
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
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.
Matej
Multiuniversal creator
Burnelli Support Group said:
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.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,920
- Reaction score
- 21,768
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.
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.
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,137
- Reaction score
- 4,308
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
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.
Similar threads
-
-
Inglis Moore Uppercu and the Burnelli connection
- Started by Tophe
- Replies: 12
-
-
Hypothetical 6-Engined Bomber (looks like Burnelli design)- Started by hesham
- Replies: 1
-