The Burnelli Web Site
Evidence of Suppression and Official denial is overwhelming
spacer
Complete Report in Acrobat PDF format [size: 6.4 MB] 
all emphasis added

Long Range Aircraft Projects
Report TD-003
 
The text below is a transcript of portions of Report TD-003, namely the Acknowledgements page and the Introduction page in addition to the Results page of the Comparative Computations Report written by Dr. Max Munk.  The report was issued in March 1943.
 

 

"Acknowledgements

The Authors wish gratefully to acknowledge the valuable assistance of the following:

  1. Mr. V. J. Burnelli, New York, Originator of Lifting Fuselage Principle .

  2. Dr. Max Munk, Washington, D.C., Comparative Performance Calculations.

  3. Dr. Alexander Klemin, New York University, Technical Advice on Design and Stability.

  4. Dr. J.H. Parkin and Mr. G.S. Levy, National Research Council of Canada, for Assistance in Wind Tunnel Research.

  5. Mr. Murray Semple, Canadian Car & Foundry Co. Ltd., for his continuous co-operation."

     

"Introduction

Extensive research proves the superiority of the lifting fuselage principle over conventional practice applied to large long range authorities, Dr. Alexander Klemin, Dr. Max Munk and other eminent scientists.

A non-stop schedule from London to new York, carrying 100 passengers, is chosen as a rational basis for comparing the efficiency of a lifting fuselage type with that of a conventional aircraft, this route being known to cover the greatest volume of traffic and the longest non-stop run (4,500 miles still air).

To meet these requirements, and provide a real yardstick for comparison, the following designs are computed;

(A) A six-engined Burnelli Transport called the "B" project.  See dwg.  B-2000 specification and illustrations pages 19 to 25.

(B) A six-engined Burnelli twin boom bomber which is the military version of the B-2000. Pages 26 to 28.

(C) A six-engined conventional transport aeroplane known as the "V" project.  See Dwg.  V-1000, specification and illustrations Pages 29 to 37 inclusive.

These aircraft have the same span, 220 ft., same total take-off power, 20,000 H.P. and same gross weight, 220,000 lbs., thus differences in useful load and performance result only from improved basic design.

To further illustrate the possibilities of the Burnelli lifting fuselage applied to the construction of giant planes, the preliminary design of a large semi tail-less flying wing is included, see dwg.  B-1000, specification and illustrations pages 40 to 47."

Results of
Comparative Performance Computations

"Page 12

Result.

The B project has a smaller drag .  This is the natural consequence of the substitution of two small booms for a large fuselage.  The total wing area is larger, but there still remains a balance in favor of the B project, although the difference by itself is not striking.

Both projects having the same weight and span, and both projects having a wing plane view reasonably close to an elliptical one, it can be confidently expected that both projects will give equal induced drag under equal conditions.

The B project requires furthermore a lighter structure only, thus having a larger capacity for freight .

Since thus the B project exceeds the V project in every respect, in smallness of drag, in smallness of weight of the structure, and also in some other ways that are not within the scope of this report, but tend to decrease the drag farther, it results that the B project is the better one.  It exceeds the V project in all performance items.  The superiority is particularly pronounced in its cargo carrying capacity over long distances.  This is aided by the smaller structural weight, and to a lessor degree by the somewhat smaller drag.  The B project carries more than one and a half times the freight of the V project over 4500 miles.

It is well to keep in mind that the superior performance of the B project is not in any way obtained by sacrificing a small landing speed, but on the contrary: the B project has a smaller wing loading and in consequence will definitely land much slower than the V project.  It is doubtful whether the high landing speed of the V project will make it suitable for commercial operations.  Increasing the wing area of the V project for the purpose of bringing its landing speed down to the landing speed of the B project will further increase its drag and its structural weight.  A comparison between such modified V project and the B project would be more fair the B project.  It would show even larger superiority of the B project over and in comparison with the conventional design."

 

 

 

previous next top home