Mar 012009
On display at the New England Air Museum in Connecticut is the rather sad carcass of the Burnelli CBY-3 prototype. This 1944 cargo transport used the “lifting fuselage principle, as most of Burnellis designs did, to increase lift. The aircraft on display has obviously seen better days. The tailbooms and horizontal stabilizer have been removed (at least they were when I took these photos in late 2007), and are stored within the fuselage.
11 Responses to “Burnelli CBY-3”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Damn, one of his designs survives. Too bad Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center or the Red Bull people can’t get it and restore it.
Yes, the only Burnelli to survive is at NEAM. NEAM has refused to restore, sell or let any group restore this one of a kind plane from our history of flight. It’s downright unethical if not criminal.
Check out the newest additions to the Burnelli inspired RC models successfully flown: http://aerodromedia.blogspot.com/
We’re workin’ on it.
I can’t say as I understand how it would be “criminal.” Unwise, yes. But they have a *lot* of planes in need of restoration, including planes of substantially greater historical import. The CBY-3 was a neat plane, but a dead end. Since their collection got whacked by a tornado some years back, they’ve had a lot of repairs to make. Around 2001 I visited the museum and their B-47 still had engines just hanging off bent wings.
Another explanation for the delay might well be the whackjob nature of many of the “fans” of Burnelli. I know that *I* have certainly had more than my share of irrational conspiracy theories tossed at me about how the Burnelli lifting fuselage is the greatest thing since sliced cheese, and it’s all a big conspiracy to keep the design unbuilt; I’ve heard it enough to really turn me off to the concept. I’ve no doubt that those in charge of the museum have also gotten a bellyfull of the faithfull barking at ’em about it.
admin says: I can’t understand how it could be criminal.—There were a lot of B-47s made. There are plenty of B-47s restored. There was and is only 1 CBY-3, only 1 plane left to honor the genius of a designer who dared to step outside the “tube” to make a better, safer, more efficient plane. To let the only surviving example of such American ingenuity in our history of flight decay into dust is criminal. There is no excuse after more than 40 years to not restore this plane.
admin says: The CBY-3 is a neat plane, but a dead end.—Check out NASA’s version of this dead end, lifting fuselage design http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~9~9~58445~162289: Now, compare Burnelli’s final supersonic design before his death in 1964 http://www.burnelli.com/Welcome.html . Open two pages so you can toggle back and forth to both designs. Also compare DARPA’s mach 10 HTV-3X http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/blackswift-the-first-robotic-war-machine-in-space/ DEAD END? Not even!
admin says: …the whackjob nature of many of the “fans” of Burnelli.—Yes, I’m sure there are some who are overly zealous and angry that Burnelli has been mostly wiped out of the history of flight for “what ever” reasons. But their anger is justified. As you saw above, this plane design is now sought after as “the design of the future.” The BWB, though an inferior design with only 20% lift from the fuselage compared to Burnelli’s 50%, claims the design will improve fuel consumption by 25% per passenger. Burnelli’s 1964 design would improve fuel efficiency by an estimated 50% per passenger.
I have been involved in a mission to bring Burnelli’s name out of the darkness for 3 years. In that time I have spoken to and shown the Burnelli designs to a Northrop Grumman Project Manager who was involved with the next generation, YF-23 stealth fighter, to a prior director of NASA Ames Research and to a long standing professor at the University of Texas. The man from Northrop and the previous NASA Ames director were totally unaware of and completely blown away by the history of Burnelli and his designs. The professor did remember Burnelli from his childhood and was very impressed by his accomplishments. He also stated that the 1964 design had many advantages over the Boeing BWB.
These people have spent most of their lives studying, researching and being involved in some of history’s most advanced designs. They all say that this design needs to be studied more and don’t understand why Burnelli is not in the history books. Just making the statement that Burnelli’s designs were a dead end does not make it so. Because one is tired of hearing seeming “irrational” conspiracy theories does not mean all the theories are untrue. These professional’s from different backgrounds in aerospace all agree that this design is certainly no dead end.
Another professional, Rick Wood, Senior Aeronautical Engineer at NASA said this, ”
By accident I stumbled onto your web site and was surprised or perhaps should say amazed at what I found. As a senior aerodynamicist at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia I was totally taken by surprise by the contributions of Mr. Burnelli. I had thought that I was aware of those that have made significant contributions to the aeronautics, but it is clear that I was mistaken. I was completely unaware of the contributions of Mr. Burnelli and through some limited conversations with other senior research engineers at this Center it has become clear that I am not alone. It is amazing to both myself and my co-workers that we could be unaware of such contributions. It causes us great concern that our lack of knowledge of Mr. Burnelli’s work could have contributed to many re-creation activities within the Industry and the waste of large amounts of tax dollars.
As a result of your web site I have begun an exhaustive search of the archives within NASA to uncover the technical history of Mr. Burnelli and his influence on aeronautical history. At this time I will plan to present my findings in one of the future AIAA conferences, perhaps the 2000 AIAA Reno conference. In support of this objective I would greatly appreciate any assistance and technical information that can provide.”
I will look forward to your response.
Respectfully
Rick Wood
***-864-6174
r.m.wood@***nasa.gov
Mr. Wood is not a whackjob or a fanatic. He could not believe his eyes just as most I’ve shown my presentation to. He was just in disbelief that we’d spent “billions” of tax dollars to re-invent the airfoil body design when it should have been available in the history books. He may be more angry than the “less educated” Burnelli fans. He has hard evidence of a huge wrong unjustly done to, not only Burnelli but to the American tax payer.
There is plenty of evidence to show that Burnelli “was” unjustly shut out government competition. There is plenty of evidence to show that his design has many advantages over the tubular design, if one cares to look and find it. General Hap Arnold was a genius militarily and he chose Burnelli’s design as a bomber for good reason. After Burnelli was denied Roosevelt’s signature on the contracts to build the 38 bombers that Arnold requested, Arnold had Burnelli’s design re-tested. He had his own report written to show the superiority of Burnelli’s design and his support of it. He did not want be accused of being asleep at the wheel when Burnelli’s genius was rediscovered in the future.
With the support I’m gaining and continue to gain I believe Burnelli will have his day. My goal is to find the people or person with the money, the vision and the desire to take advantage of the current opportunity of the changes needed in the airline industry. At it’s current rate of decline and with fuel prices a constant threat to the industry’s future, I believe the time is now to pursue this design. At half the cost to build, in half the time, with half the fuel consumption per passenger, with take off and landing speeds around 100mph and design inspired safety improvements, what’s not to like?
I’m workin’ on it. http://aerodromedia.blogspot.com/
> To let the only surviving example of such American ingenuity in our history of flight decay into dust is criminal.
What criminal code is being broken? Is it a state or federal law?
> DEAD END? Not even!
No, it was a dead end. How many were built? Where was the production line? Where can I go to buy one?
> compare Burnelli’s final supersonic design before his death in 1964
Really rather an awful design. The inlets in particular are placed extraordinarily poorly; pressure recovery, especially at high alpha conditions, would have been horrid. An engine stall at landing is hardly the best way to demonstrate safety.
> Just making the statement that Burnelli’s designs were a dead end does not make it so.
True. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. Recognizing that nobody ever put a Burnelli design into production *does* make it so, however. Boeing kinda sorta vaguely came close in the 1970’s with their designs for Husky; but it’s my understanding that threats of lawsuits from the Burnelli estate made them simply walk away from the concept.
A superficial resemblance between some of Burnellis later designs and more recent designs like the X-43B are matters of convergent evolution, not copying.
> He has hard evidence of a huge wrong unjustly done to, not only Burnelli but to the American tax payer.
Do you have the slightest idea of how many interesting and useful aeronautical design concepts were developed to a high degree, then simply *dropped?*
> There is plenty of evidence to show that his design has many advantages over the tubular design
It does indeed. It also has many *disadvantages,* including much higher drag at high speed. Nice thin wings lift planes off runways just fine; big fat lifting fuselages impact a trainload of parasitic drag at high speed that narrow fuselages *don’t*. The BWB concept, which derives not from Burnelli work but from McDonnell Douglas designs that started with tubular and multi-bubble fuselages, use a vast and complex amount of blending to reduce that drag as much as possible in the hopes of achieving high fuel efficiency. Burnellis designs, in comparison, were slab-sided monstrocities, ill suited for high speed, lightweight internal pressurization, or fuel economy.
>At half the cost to build, in half the time, with half the fuel consumption per passenger, with take off and landing speeds around 100mph and design inspired safety improvements, what’s not to like?
As you yourself said… saying so doesn’t make it so. Boeing, Airbus, TsAGI, Tupolev, etc have all examined the whichness of the why with BWBs, and have so far failed to sink large sums of their own money into building full-scale prototypes, or even on full-scale pitches to air forces and airlines. If the designs were really that much better than the conventional, don’t you think that they would be scrambling to be the first to field one, and claim the market?
In the words of Winston Churchill: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
So, I guess you believe you are smarter and more informed than all the people mentioned above. Smarter than a NASA Sr. Aeronautical Engineer. Hmmm. You must have SOME education to make that claim. He seemed to think the fuselage design with the slabs side was superior to the blended wing. Read this report that supports this by Meridian International Research, that is if you are not worried about confusing your opinion with facts.
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Burnelli.htm Or do you just want to rant on that you believe you know why the Burnelli died and that everyone else who disagrees doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about.
The professor of 44 years at the University of Texas Aerospace Department described the advantage of the flat sides of the airfoil body. He said the edge would create a vortex that would act as a fence to keep the airflow over and under the airfoil separated and give more lift. The vortex would of course start to break up at some point and that’s where the wing picks up the flow to become lift for the wing.
McDonnell-Douglas didn’t seem to have a problem with the engine and intake placement either in 1995 when their BWB concept hit the cover of Popular Science. http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/megajet.jpg The only reason they changed it was to avoid paying The Burnelli Company a fee for using Burnelli’s patented intake and engine placement. Have you seen the newest Boeing BWB design? http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-04/planes-trains-and-sueprsonic-spaceships?page=
Engines placed in the airfoil tail. Hmmm. Intakes that pull the air off the back of the airfoil that would become drag to turn it into thrust. Hmmm.
Is any of this looking familiar to you or are you so blinded by your years of “reasoning” why Burnelli’s designs were crap that you “won’t” see the similarities. Yes, Boeing was going to build a Burnelli style transport but without giving any recognition or credit to the designer. I guess you think stealing other’s ideas is OK. Boeing wanted to build it because of the profit advantages but without sharing any of it with the company that would have made that possible. Sounds like you approve of that.
I didn’t say they copied the X-43B from the Burnelli design. I said Rick Wood was angered by the fact that it took almost 4 decades and billions of our tax dollars to come up with a design that would have been a piece of cake for a 1st year student had Burnelli’s work been available in the history books.
I suppose you know that the front and rear wing edges that give lift to the airliners of today are a Burnelli patent as are the winglets that designers have added for stability and reduced drag. Even with these 2 major additions to flight, Burnelli is not even mentioned in The Book of Flight. The Book of Flight mentions idiots who’s designs wouldn’t even roll down the runway without falling apart let alone fly. Burnelli had 90 some patents, many of which were totally new concepts that were later adopted and are used in many aircraft today. Why no mention of him? I guess that’s OK with you too.
Let me see. In your opinion, the following peoples’ opinions mean they are:
Sr. Aeronautical Engineer – Idiot, misled or Burnelli fanatic
Northrop Grumman Project Manager – Idiot, misled or Burnelli fanatic
Sr. Aerospace Professor(of 44yrs) – Idiot, misled or Burnelli fanatic
Director of University Aerospace Department, Past Director of NASA Ames, Prior Head of the Air Force, Major Aerodynamic Consultant on the Space Shuttle – Idiot, misled or Burnelli fanatic.
I’m sorry that you have little or no facts to share. All I’ve been doing here is relating historic facts, current facts and opinions of people with PhDs, Doctorates and years in the field of aerospace and aeronautics. To add to that, I’ve related the interests of NASA, DARPA and Boeing to you, yet you still believe all these people and companies are, at the least, idiots or misled in their pursuit of lifting fuselage designs that are similar to Burnelli’s.
Here’s an opinion:
admin – Know-it-all about Burnelli. Everyone else is who disagrees is an idiot, misled or a Burnelli fanatic. I really think you are out there with a very few who think this way. Everyone, and I mean everyone, I’ve shown my Burnelli presentation to in the last 3 years has been in awe of this man’s genius. This includes the naive who don’t have a clue about plane design but can recognize a better, safer, more intelligent and cost effective plane when they see it to the very well educated who have been involved in aerospace for a lifetime.
You sir have shown your closed minded attitude. If you could show me more than your opinion, which is suspect for lack of facts, I would be interested in what you have to say. Since you have no intention of making an effort to research any of this, I will let you rant on about how the Burnelli design was garbage and engage you no more. It seems a waste of time since your opinion is carved in stone.
Quote:
Even opinion is of force enough to make itself to be espoused at the expense of life..
Author: Michael Eyquen de Montaigne
Source: Of Good and Evil
Quote:
He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, and will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today.
Author: Tryon Edwards
ZZZZzzzzzZZzzZZZZZsnorkzzzZZZzZZZZzzz
You conspiracy trolls are repetatively dull no matter *what* you’re on about.
Wow! I thought you would at least think about what I’ve shown you and what I said. You looked at and thought about nothing. You proved my point completely. How sad.
> I thought you would at least think about what I’ve shown you…
You’ve shown me what I’ve already seen, far too many times: the fanatic. The zealot. The conspiri-kook.
If your goal is to actually convince people to fund your dream, you’d be well advised to change strategies. You’ll find no bigger fan of expanding the field of aeronautics than me… and you’ve managed to sour me Burnelli’s designs.
You make enemies from those who might have otherwise agreed with you, at least to some degree.
THAT is probably why the CBY-3 has been left to moulder.
You expect me to believe that crock of bull you just wrote. You were sour on Burnelli before I wrote one word. You wouldn’t agree on anything us zealots have to say about the Burnelli. Thank God you didn’t believe anything I wrote. I’d hate to have a whackjob like you on my team. You’re so full of yourself it’s a wonder you don’t make yourself sick.
Let see, 120 I’ve talked to say the Burnelli is a great plane and 1 (you) says it’s all crap. Oh, who should I believe? I’m so torn. Because of your opinion I guess I should drop the whole thing. NOT!
If you hate it so much why do you want to waste your time showing your prejudice to people who support it? That’s just odd. What do you have to gain by putting everyone down that believes it’s a good plane design? What good end could possibly come from that? That’s just weird. You don’t think that’s weird? I think that’s weird.
> You were sour on Burnelli before I wrote one word.
Yes, because I’ve encountered your kind before.
> Let see, 120 I’ve talked to say the Burnelli is a great plane and 1 (you) says it’s all crap. Oh, who should I believe?
All the companies that have leaped to build “liftign fuselage” designs because it is obviously such a superior concept. Believe *them.*
> If you hate it so much why do you want to waste your time showing your prejudice to people who support it?
You came here, you may recall. But then you also wrote “I will let you rant on about how the Burnelli design was garbage and engage you no more.” And yet, here you are, continuing to yammer on about your obsession. I think that’s weird.