It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Burnelli Aircraft Cheaper And Safer?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   


Does anyone have experience at building/flying model Burnelli aircraft?

Are there any real problems apart from the greater vertical distance passengers in the outer seats would travel while banking?

Would they be more difficult to control in strong winds?

The story around the lack of acceptance of the Burnelli design doesn't seem to make sense unless an oilman asked "How much fuel does it use?" Is there some unspoken but terrible flaw that makes these aircraft impractical?




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


how do you know that burnelli designs are " safe " ? where are the millions of hours flight logs ?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
That video is horrible to unwatchable with the flickering! As such I had to stop watching it after 3 mins.

How old is that video? Does the Burnelli aircraft with its fast height increase compared to a traditional aircraft at takeoff, unsettle or make the passengers uncomfortable?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Ahead of his time really you are beginning to see a lot more flying wing designs now, he just never got the production contracts corporations like douglas could afford to bribe congress and the military for.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
That video is horrible to unwatchable with the flickering! As such I had to stop watching it after 3 mins.

How old is that video? Does the Burnelli aircraft with its fast height increase compared to a traditional aircraft at takeoff, unsettle or make the passengers uncomfortable?


Terrible video!! I had to look away then look back when the flickering stopped. No idea how old the vid is.

The faster climb would obviously feel different. I doubt that it could be fast enough to cause physical discomfort.






posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
There is so much patent self-intersted propaganda in there it's pathetic.

The guy complaining is president of the Burnelli a/c company - so of course he's completely unbiased and factual?

All lifting bodies are a result of stealing Burnelli's ideas?? That conveniently ignores other designs that used body lift from the 1930's, and Hugo Junkers patented a flying wing in 1910.

There is no actual evidence that anyone would ever have been saved in the first place.

Lifting bodies present problems with pressurisation - not insurmountable ones for sure, but it's not a nice easy "slam dunk" like a tubular or tube-derived body shape does.

So the design looks very interesting - but if the modern company is to succeed then need to do so in the market by building something that people want to buy - not by being cry baby and whining about how unfair the world is.

If it really is cheaper and safer then that should prove no problem at all.......



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Kester, I dont know if you've read this. It may be of interest;

homepage.ntlworld.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
There-is-a-saying--"if-it-looks-right-it-will-fly-right"--personal-tastes-aside
I-cant-help-but-be-reminded-of-this
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Kester, I dont know if you've read this. It may be of interest;

homepage.ntlworld.com...


Thank you. That seems to be the main parts of the story in one easy to read article.

The 1935 crash is a good example of the strength and safety of the design. I heard the mechanics were rushed and excited preparing for the cameras and that is what caused them to make the silly mistake which caused the crash. They accidentally provided us with a record of what actually happens when a Burnelli hits the ground. It cartwheels, doesn't catch fire and the crew walk away. In all the crashes of tube and wing aircraft how many have behaved that well?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by waynos
Kester, I dont know if you've read this. It may be of interest;

homepage.ntlworld.com...


Thank you. That seems to be the main parts of the story in one easy to read article.

The 1935 crash is a good example of the strength and safety of the design. I heard the mechanics were rushed and excited preparing for the cameras and that is what caused them to make the silly mistake which caused the crash. They accidentally provided us with a record of what actually happens when a Burnelli hits the ground. It cartwheels, doesn't catch fire and the crew walk away. In all the crashes of tube and wing aircraft how many have behaved that well?


How can you say that every Burnelli based aircraft crash would have the same result?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Exactly - a sample of 1 is nto all that convincing.

And if you go back to that era, as I understand it, landing speds weer slow enough that many crashes weer surviveable - all aircraft were of much lower performance than passenger a/c are today and there are numerous pictures of, for example, crash landed B-17's on English airfields wher the airframe has stayed intact.

also without any stress measurement who is to say that passengers with typical pre-WW2 restraints (jsut a lap belt & seats not rated to carry any significant g-force) would have survived all that cartwheeling even though the cabin stayed intact????



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

How can you say that every Burnelli based aircraft crash would have the same result?


We can say no other Burnelli crash had a different result.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Exactly - a sample of 1 is nto all that convincing.

And if you go back to that era, as I understand it, landing speds weer slow enough that many crashes weer surviveable - all aircraft were of much lower performance than passenger a/c are today and there are numerous pictures of, for example, crash landed B-17's on English airfields wher the airframe has stayed intact.

also without any stress measurement who is to say that passengers with typical pre-WW2 restraints (jsut a lap belt & seats not rated to carry any significant g-force) would have survived all that cartwheeling even though the cabin stayed intact????


There's a huge sample of tube and wing crashes to study. How many of them hit wingtip first without breaking up?

Landing speeds would still be slower in this era for Burnelli aircraft due to the design. That's one of their big safety features. As you so rightly point out the landing speed of 'high performance' modern tube and wing aircraft is a major cause of death in the event of a crash.

A B-17 crash landing, on one wheel for example, is very different from the 1935 Burnelli crash. Wingtip first, cartwheeling, no fire and everyone walked away.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Kester
 


how do you know that burnelli designs are " safe " ? where are the millions of hours flight logs ?


The question is "Are they safer?"



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
There is so much patent self-intersted propaganda in there it's pathetic.

The guy complaining is president of the Burnelli a/c company - so of course he's completely unbiased and factual?

All lifting bodies are a result of stealing Burnelli's ideas?? That conveniently ignores other designs that used body lift from the 1930's, and Hugo Junkers patented a flying wing in 1910.

There is no actual evidence that anyone would ever have been saved in the first place.

Lifting bodies present problems with pressurisation - not insurmountable ones for sure, but it's not a nice easy "slam dunk" like a tubular or tube-derived body shape does.

So the design looks very interesting - but if the modern company is to succeed then need to do so in the market by building something that people want to buy - not by being cry baby and whining about how unfair the world is.

If it really is cheaper and safer then that should prove no problem at all.......



I think the whole point is the lack of funding prevented enough being built for the market to make a choice. The funding has been available for fuel hungry tube and wing aircraft. I'm not suggesting they're cheaper to build, just cheaper on fuel.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12voltz
There-is-a-saying--"if-it-looks-right-it-will-fly-right"--personal-tastes-aside
I-cant-help-but-be-reminded-of-this
www.youtube.com...


I'm not really sure how this relates to the comparative safety or fuel efficiency of Burnelli aircraft. But thanks for the laugh.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
Ahead of his time really you are beginning to see a lot more flying wing designs now, he just never got the production contracts corporations like douglas could afford to bribe congress and the military for.


I suspect the lifting body is cheaper and easier to design and build than the flying wing.
Yeah, money seems to be the factor that prevented wider acceptance. Allegedly Tesla's wireless energy was rejected because, "Where would we put the meter?" An aircraft that uses half the fuel isn't going to appeal to oil barons.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
There's a huge sample of tube and wing crashes to study. How many of them hit wingtip first without breaking up?


dunno - I cant' acgtually find any at all for large passenger aircraft - I found this one of a small aircraft - both occupants survived.

Perhaps you could point us at this "huge sample"??

The Burnelli crash also isn't an example of an aircraft not breaking up - it is an example of the CABIN not breaking up.


Landing speeds would still be slower in this era for Burnelli aircraft due to the design.


Indeed - that is because it is piston engine powered 1930's design - pretty much every aircraft of the era has a lower landing speed than due to design!!


Here's a 1940's "tube" design cartwheeling with no fire and no casualties:



And here is a report of a B-17 cartwheeling on landing with no fire and no casualties (see mission 17).

you completely failed to even try to address the lack of actual data - was the crash actually survivable for passengers?? No-one knows - the test pilot reports he thinks it would have been - but that's only opinion based on the cabin staying moer or less intact - and we now know that it takes a lot more than that to avoid injury.


That's one of their big safety features. As you so rightly point out the landing speed of 'high performance' modern tube and wing aircraft is a major cause of death in the event of a crash.


And could a Burnelli aircraft actually BE a "high performance aircraft in the first place? Various studies have been done for blended-wing-body airliners - link and are still happening - the millions being poured into thsi by NASA, Boeing et al give a lie to the simplistic assumption that Burnelli had a nice simple solution to aviation safety.


edit on 15-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by DaRAGE
.


that video is extremely biased and not to mention, misinformed. That crash was meant to burst into flames, they put spikes along the runway to make sure it was the worst possible crash. Also trying to take legal action against Boeing saying the B-2 is somehow related to his craft is like saying the shuttle is a rip off of the Wright flyer cause they both have wings.
it is a fairly old design, and it is a good one, but there are better lifting body/ flying wing designs now.

I am annoyed though at how every airliner has looked the same since the 50's but its not a conspiracy. Its just the public's phobia of changing and "out of the box" things. At least the X-48 blended wing-body project is doing really well and I'm hopeful of it for the very near future...
by the way, the X-48 program is addressing the problems of passenger comfort, pressurisation, and safety (primarily noise though)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetflyerX

I am annoyed though at how every airliner has looked the same since the 50's but its not a conspiracy. Its just the public's phobia of changing and "out of the box" things.


This is certainly a factor worth considering. London taxi design is largely aimed at comforting the public with a familiar image.







 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join