September / October, 2000
to an Engineer (Boeing)
Email series from Mr. C.H. Goodlin
Part 1 of
In this part,
allegations made by Boeing Engineer (who did protest so much
that he didn't speak for Boeing that it irritated a number of
list-subscribers) - not necessarily in order of
- "We know
how to make slow airplanes. You don't need to make the
fusilage [sic] into a lifting body to make slow airplanes"
[for the purposes of take-off and landing.]
- "[Conventional] airplanes have more than enough
Other general statements inferred that
the Burnelli lifting body didn't afford
any advantages over the conventional aircraft and
that the conspiracy was a figment of the
imagination of the people at aircrash.org and of Mr.
Goodlin's imagination, to whom the email was written.
These are not
the only allegations made by this engineer, however, we don't
wish to embarrass this man any more than he already has
embarrassed himself as it doesn't lead to anything
constructive. However, Mr. Goodlin's answers show some facts
not previously shown on the aircrash web-site which we thought might
be of interest to you.
If you wish to research this more
in depth and wish to view the myriad of messages regarding
this topic, you can access the vortex archive at:http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html
----- Begin Original Message -----
From: Chalmers H.
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:20 PM
Subject: Response to Mr. Lajoie's 6
emails of July 2 & 3
With regard to Mr.
Lajoie's six emails on the Burnelli subject of July 2 and July
It is pointless to
dwell on theory when there is a plethora of factual evidence
at hand, which proves that the Burnelli configuration totally
outclasses the streamlined fuselage designs. For example, let
us go back to 1948 when the USAF conducted a flight-test
evaluation of the Burnelli CBY-3 at Wright Field. Shortly
afterwards the Defense Department ordered a conventional
design of similar size to be built in Canada called the AC-1A.
Both the Burnelli CBY-3 and the AC-1A were powered by the same
engines & both licensed by Canadian Dept. Of Transport.
Both were licensed at gross weights of 28,500 lbs. and by
using total horsepower value (2,900) as a common denominator
and extracting all values from Defense Dept. Flight test
reports, it's possible to compare salient
CBY-3 (Lifting-Body) v. AC-1A
|Volume per hp -
|Floor area per
hp - sq.in.
per hp - lbs
per hp - knots
We see the Burnelli CBY-3 excels in every
respect over the conventional but the Defense Dept. bought the
AC-1A. The AC-1A proved to be totally unsatisfactory and by
1960 the U.S. Army was demanding more adequate transportation.
In February 1962, the US Army Air Materiel Command
issued a scorching report
condemning the AC-1A and the suggested replacement, the AC-II.
This report caused congress to demand a new competition and
that the Burnelli Company be invited to participate. The
competition was held and Burnelli entered an upgraded version
of the CBY-3 designated the MCBY-100 and powered by the same
T-64 engines as the other entries. This competition turned out
to be a pure sham affair as the contract was awarded to the
manufacturer of the AC-1A in spite of the damning report
mentioned above and the superiority of the Burnelli design as
MCBY-100 (Lifting-Body) v. AC-II
|Volume per hp - cu.ft.
per hp - sq. in.
|Useful load per hp - lbs
speed per hp - knots
|Take-off distance over
50ft obstacle -- full gross weight
|Landing distance over 50ft obstacle
-- 34,000 lbs gross weight.
Now, let's jump to 1973 and the Boeing
754 which employed Burnelli technology. Here are the actual
Boeing figures comparing the freight carrying capability of
the Burnelli-type Boeing 754 with the Boeing
Boeing 754 (Lifting-Body) v.
Boeing 767 (Conventional)
* Boeing 767
cannot carry standard 8x8x20 ft
When the Burnelli Company became aware of
the Boeing 754, a letter was written to Boeing pointing out
that the B-754 violated the Burnelli patent and intellectual
property rights but that the Burnelli Company would be glad to
negotiate a license agreement with the Boeing Company. The
Boeing Company responded saying that while:
"we have considered
such lifting-body aircraft in our studies; however, other
designs appear more promising to us at this time.
Accordingly, we are not interested in acquiring patent or
proprietary rights from the Burnelli Company."
(Boeing letter of June 13,
1977 Ref: 6-1101-9-227)
Nothing further was
heard on the B-754 since that time.
The Boeing Company has now again
complimented the Burnelli principle of design by proceeding
with the Boeing-NASA Blended Wing Body, which is a clear copy
of Mr. Burnelli's 1940s technology.
With all respect the
above examples clearly point out that the Burnelli
configuration offers much greater value per horse-power
employed while offering much lower take-off and landing speeds
and providing unparalleled safety advantages.
With regard to your
inquiry about Northrop's relationship to Burnelli, it is my
opinion that Northrop was a "Johnny come lately" in the
lifting body / flying-wing field. I refer you to George
Larson's (present editor of the Smithsonian Air & Space
magazine) article "The Flying Wing" which appeared in Business
and Commercial Aviation, March 1985:
"Americans, too, were active
in tailless design. The first to touch on the concept was
Vincent Burnelli, who really aimed at the span-loader idea
with a "lifting body" fuselage shaped like an airfoil
intended to contribute to lift. (Anyone who has seen an
experimental design called the Hyperbipe perform its
aerobatics routine in air shows can imagine Burnelli's
design without seeing it in a photograph.) And then there
Wing," Business & Commercial Aviation,
March 1985, pages
35-39 - quote on page 38.
Strangely, since joining the
Smithsonian, Mr. Larson seems to have forgotten what he wrote in 1985.
You must admit that
the B-2 is a copy of Burnelli's 1940s technology and not a
derivative of Northrop's B-49 technology.
questions about the Burnelli Company: this company dates back
to 1921 when it was known as the Remington-Burnelli Company
and in the interim other Burnelli interests have been merged
into it. It owns all patent, proprietary and intellectual
property rights relating to Burnelli Lifting-Body principle of
design. The Burnelli Company is not listed on the New York
Stock Exchange for the simple reason that the Department of
Defense notified the Securities and Exchange Commission in
1958 that there was no market for Burnelli airplanes for the
- "That the Burnelli
'lifting fuselage' design does not offer sufficient new or
novel ideas of military value to warrant the construction of
experimental or production airplanes.
- That the principal
aerodynamic benefits claimed by V.J. Burnelli have been
achieved on present experimental and production airplanes
through the use of properly shaped streamlined bodies upon
which low drag rather than high lift has been emphasized.
- That the Burnelli
emphasis upon the 'lifting fuselage' is not in accordance
with best aeronautical practice based upon best aerodynamic
information, since such a fuselage has a relatively low
critical speed which definitely limits the future
development of this type of airplane."
These above-listed asseverations stem
from the fraudulent 1941 U.S. Army Air Corps Proceedings of a
Board of Review Report which was
politically motivated to eliminate Mr. Burnelli and his
company from the procurement scene. This behavior on the part
of the Department of Defense has been supported by the
aircraft industry in general for obvious commercial
Any qualified aeronautical engineer
will recognize the glaring contradiction between these three
asseverations and the claims made by McDonnell Douglas - now
Boeing - with regards to their BWB.
All of the above
shows that the Burnelli Company has always had the superior
product and that it has been denied its inalienable right to
compete in the marketplace by criminal conspiracy on the part
of the Department of Defense, industry and others which
President Eisenhower referred to as the military-industrial
You are not correct
in saying that the aircrash web-site does not duplicate or
support Mr. Jones' claims in regard to safety factors, the
truth is that the public has been forced to fly in streamlined
fuselage airliners, which are fundamentally flawed. What could
be more stupid than the common practice of hanging engines and
landing-gear on fuel-tank supporting structure in combination
with excessively high take-off and landing-speeds on
over-stressed tires? The Burnelli configuration does not
suffer from these flaws which are inherent in the streamlined
As you work for Boeing, we assume you
are a graduate aeronautical engineer from one of the leading
universities, as you like to talk about litigation, you might
consider the wisdom of claiming a rebate of your college
tuition because your university failed to alert you to the
importance of America's greatest aeronautical genius, Vincent
Justus Burnelli and the Burnelli Lifting Body principle of
I hope you'll take
the time to really seriously view the aircrash web-site which
contains abundant material of great educational