Due to the high volume of email asking similar questions,
this section is designed to help reduce our workload and answer
your questions rapidly.
- Saying there's a conspiracy is ludicrous. What evidence do you have?
See Burnelli Company C.E.O., Chalmers H. Goodlin's response.
- Why doesn't Burnelli sue the manufacturers for stealing
Burnelli technology for airplanes like the F-14, F-15, F-22, Aurora , and X-33?
See McDonnell Douglas, 6 November 1984
If you've read the McDonnell Douglas letter mentioned above, you know suing the manufacturers
won't work, they have an agreement with the government and the government will protect them. The
Congressional Record shows that this agreement is designed to defraud the people and inventors of their rights. Suing the government is not an option in light of the
above and even if it was, the Burnelli Company has been denied the right to be in business and
acquire funds in a commercial manner with which to take legal action against the manufacturers or
the government. The only court which can decide on the merits of the case without being
influenced by corruption, is the court of public opinion (you). HELP!
- Very successful military aircraft using the Burnelli principle
are flying today, why aren't there any civilian Burnelli aircraft
- Military contractors hide behind the
Pentagon for any license infringements, the manufacturer
of a civilian aircraft doesn't have that option.
- Why civilian manufacturers refuse to take a license from
the Burnelli company is inexplicable but you may want to ask
Boeing yourself (McDonnell Douglas is now owned by Boeing). The
BOEING email address is:
- Why doesn't the Burnelli Company just build Burnelli airplanes?
The fraudulent 1941 U.S. Army Air Corps
Board of Review Report has been so widely disseminated by
the Pentagon, including an appearance in a Securities and Exchance
Commision (SEC) stop order against the Burnelli Company in 1957,
that funds have been denied the Burnelli Company. Until that
report has been retracted it has been made clear that funds will
not be available.
You can help by emailing a protest to Secretary of Defense William Cohen and demanding
a retraction of the technical falsifications in the September 17, 1941
Report (AG 452.1 (10-16-41)MC) -- bureaucrats take action only after receiving widespread protest
-- please be sure to write:
If you have a direct email address for Secretary Cohen, would you please send it to us
- Why doesn't BOEING take a license from Burnelli?
The unrelenting aircrash fatalities and hull losses have caused
the Burnelli Company to repeatedly offer BOEING a license agreement
but BOEING has always refused for reasons incomprehensible. Maybe
you'll be more successful - ask them: email address is:
- Why haven't overseas manufacturers taken a license from
Burnelli has found that all European manufacturers are subject
to Washington approval on any new project. Here are some examples:
In 1962 Dr. Gabrielli, Chief of FIAT aviation said they knew
Burnelli airplane were superior but as FIATs biggest customer
was NATO, FIAT could not get involved with Burnelli and alienate
In 1983 Deutsche Airbus invited Mr. Goodlin (of the Burnelli
Company) to a meeting in Hamburg at which the Airbus Chief Design
engineer, Dr. Klug, said: "The only meaningful way to improve
air-transport safety and economics is to implement the lifting-body
design." But soon after, the Chairman of Airbus, Dr. Franz
Josef Strauss, advised Mr. Goodlin: "Burnelli has an American
problem and it must be resolved in the United States."
- Why hasn't the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astornautics) supported Burnelli because of the unique safety
characteristics of the Burnelli Lifting Body design?
This answer can only come from the AIAA. Email address
Executive Director, Cort Durocher, firstname.lastname@example.org
Please forward their answers to email@example.com if possible.
- Why hasn't the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) supported
Burnelli in view of the unique safety characteristics of the
Burnelli Lifting Body design?
A close look at FSF membership indicates that for all intents
and purposes it acts as lobbying organization for the major manufacturers
(military & commercial aerospace). These manufacturers have
repeatedly refused to take a license from Burnelli while building
Burnelli type aircraft for the Pentagon. The FSF has shown that
its primary responsibility is to its membership and will not
recognize competitive products from others. Therefore the FSF
should not qualify as a tax-free organization.
You may want to ask the FSF directly why they refuse to recognize
Burnelli and the safety of his airplanes. Their email address
is: firstname.lastname@example.org (Make sure you address your comments to: Stuart Matthews, President
Flight Safety Foundation
601 Madison Street, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314 U.S.
Telephone: +(703) 739-6700
Fax: +(703) 739-6708
- Why aren't airlines interested in the safer, Burnelli
From the answers below, it is virtually impossible to know
why they aren't interested. Read them yourself. Then, you might
want to ask the airlines why they aren't interested in safer
and more economical airplanes. Send email
A February 6, 1964 letter from W.A.Patterson, Chairman &
CEO of United Airlines reads as follows:
"I am extremely disappointed to advise
you that United Air Lines does not participate in aircraft
development work that is not related to our present day
In November 2, 1984, letter to the Burnelli Company, D.P.
Hettermann, Senior vice President of Technical Operations for
Delta Airlines, wrote:
"I think, too, in the manufacturing
side, as well as the operational area, certain facilities,
equipment and capabilities have established long held precedents
which are most difficult to overcome regarding total
In an August 5, 1983 letter to the Burnelli Company, Bernard
Wood, Secretary & Legal Director for British Airways wrote:
"I am sure you will readily appreciate
that to a very large extent it is the aircraft manufacturers who
determine the design of aircraft that are offered to airlines. I
am therefore sending a copy of your letter to Boeing who, I am
sure, will be very interested"
Richard L. Spaulding, Vice President of Aircraft Sales and
Services wrote the following on February 8, 1985:
"I have passed on the information you forwarded
on the Burnelli aircraft to the appropriate individuals at USAir
for their perusal. I am advised that we have no interest in the
aircraft or design at this time."
President & CEO of Martinair Holland, J. M. Shroeder wrote
on 7 January 1993:
"In our discussions with aircraft
manufacturers we constantly stress for operational and
structural changes in order to improve the overall safety level,
which seems to be accomplished and scientifically proven by some
of the features in the Burnelli lifting body aircraft design.
Considering the size of our company we are unfortunately not in
the position to have manufacturers design and produce completely
new aircraft concepts."
- Why does the Pentagon refuse to retract the 1941
U.S. Army Air Corps Board of Review report in view of the 1939 General Hap Arnold Report and
that the Pentagon and NASA have been funding Burnelli competitors to
build airplanes using Burnelli Technology such as the B-2, F-14, F-15, F-22, Aurora,
The Pentagon has refused to respond to Burnelli about this
question. Maybe they'll tell you. Their email address is: email@example.com
1400 Defense Pentagon, Room 1E757
Washington, DC 20301-1400
Phone: (703) 697-5737
- Why does the Smithsonian Book of Flight make no mention
of Mr. Burnelli and his airplanes?
It is inexplicable. The Burnelli Company has protested this
on many occasions, in vain. The answer can only come from the
Smithsonian, their email address is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mr. Ira Michael Heyman, Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20560
- Does the Boeing Company know about the Burnelli patents?
Click here for response from the Burnelli Company.
- Why does NASA refuse to correct their fallacious claim
that it was a NASA engineer who conceived of the Lifting Body
design in 1957?
It is all very mystifying considering that the Smithsonian,
in 1937, credited Mr. Burnelli with "the first design to
employ an airfoil section fuselage" and in 1941 General
Echols wrote: "If a new design, embodying the Burnelli principle,
is to be laid down, it is believed that, regardless of legal
controversies, Burnelli should be identified with the project since he is the originator of the idea*." And Jean
Roche, retired USAF chief of Airplane Design for 43 years stated in 1965:
"The superiority and the necessity for lifting bodies
is now generally recognized by the American Air Force, its contractors,
"Burnelli was first to recognize and
apply the above principles, and everybody is now sorry they did
not think of them first. He was ahead of his time by more than the
legal life of his patents, and now those who did not think,
persist in justifying their backwardness by offering the DC-3 as
the best airplane we ever had and, therefore, Burnelli was wrong
* This quote is
drawn from research for a soon to be published biography on Mr. Burnelli.