Huge Conspiracy Deny Ignorance!:Burnelli Aircraft

This thing is huge and no flimsy speculative "conspiracy."
It affects everyone who flys aircraft. Billy Mitchell backed the design, but it was written out of consideration by the Air Trust. We are flying the least effective designs because an elite cares nothing about human life when its bottom line of profits is concerned.

The voice of science, logic, and reason is too often suppressed. Cognitive dissonance allows "inferior choices," and it is suprising how powerful it is where so called "profit," motives and vested interests roost.

A clear reading of the URL below should be helpful to all!

www.aircrash.org...

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by SkipShipman]

Assuming this is true, what do you think is the benefit of making aircraft less safe? Increased sales?

Originally posted by THENEO
Assuming this is true, what do you think is the benefit of making aircraft less safe? Increased sales?

Please read the URL,

Thanks

Originally posted by THENEO
Assuming this is true, what do you think is the benefit of making aircraft less safe? Increased sales?

You all missed it. The answer to the riddle is the same as the reason why there is no civilian version of the Nothrop flying wing. STEALTH TECHNOLOGY Back when these planes first came out, the government didn't see their value but was worried about the fact that they were tougher to control then a regular plane. Around the time they had developed the confidence in the reliability of the control system, RADAR had come into the picture in the mist of WW2. When they descovered the design's stealth properitys. Even though the stealth wasn't ready to be used by the military, they didn't want anyone else to exploit it before them.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

I began looking at the site and it convinced me that there are design flaws in aircraft, fundamental problems of engineering. The neglect of an efficient model, one that carries more payload, has lower takeoff and landing speeds, becomes clear.

The F-15 has great similarities to a 1947 fighter design of Bernelli. I thought it was interesting to know that Charles De Gaul flew a Bernelli airplane during WW II.

I hope more people would see the point about a lifting body design, keeping the perspective of safety in mind as well as stability. It is a shame that some single comment in a War Department brief, should censor for all time consideration of the scientific and engineering facts of design. I think the patents should be expired, but I suspect the glaring deficiencies of our current aircraft would be too apparent when numbers of Bernelli aircraft begin flying again.

So take a look at the URL below if you need a start, and please reply in this forum.

www.aircrash.org...

IMHO,

1) I see no 'real' conspiracy, per se'. I see capitolism at work.

2) Aircraft designer and builder Burnelli, from what I have read from this site and others concerning this topic, seems to be 'venting' displeasure at 'how' and 'why' his aricrafts and designs were over-looked, etc.

3) There are myriads of aricraft designers and builders, though not of equal talent of mention as burnelli, who can "justify" some to many of the claims that the site, in the original topic post, issues.


regards
seekerof

As a member of the aviation community, it sure is an interesting read. Drastic changes in aerodynamics and aircraft size, like some of the upcoming aircraft under development by Airbus and Boeing are going to cause repercussions through the aviaition community. How much bigger and heavier before we need longer, heavier load bearing runways/taxiways, larger gates, etc.

Some people are blind to any real conspiracy, no matter how obvious.

Smithsonian, Boeing, Northrup, NTSB, NASA, et al.
Fairly damning and conclusive.

Just check out the letters from Smithsonian's George C. Larson and Boeing's Robert A. Davis. They can omit or obfuscate ... but they can't hide the truth.

Thanks for the info, SkipShipman.
RogueOne

Originally posted by Seekerof
IMHO,

1) I see no 'real' conspiracy, per se'. I see capitolism at work.

2) Aircraft designer and builder Burnelli, from what I have read from this site and others concerning this topic, seems to be 'venting' displeasure at 'how' and 'why' his aricrafts and designs were over-looked, etc.

3) There are myriads of aricraft designers and builders, though not of equal talent of mention as burnelli, who can "justify" some to many of the claims that the site, in the original topic post, issues.


regards
seekerof

1. Capitolism (eg. corporate welfare and coercion) sums it up, not capitalism which is competitive markets indicating innovation and retooling.

2.The squeaky wheel gets the grease? Of course

3. It is amazing that regardless of the reputation of those who advocate Burnelli based upon studies and evidence, that systematic repression of this significant innovation continues.

Very interesting read. But flying is still the safest way to travel. How many millions of people fly daily? And how many died last year from a plane crash?

The reading brings up some very interesting points. One that is not really dicussed is the FAA/NTSB relationship. After evry accident the NTSB has a list of factors that would like to see improvements in. The faa does not always force manufactures to make these changes for many reasons. Cost is always the biggest factor. Airlines and the aircraft companies don't want to do massive refits so they fight back and forth to reach a compromise. Now the other thing to consider in the web site is the lifting body and flying wing. lifting bodies had not been really seen nor tested back in those days. So i'm sure most people thought of them a science fiction. The flying wing was very problemmatic until fly-by-wire and computer flight controls came along. Human pilots could not control the aircarft to a point that they felt comfortable in it.

JMHO

Originally posted by huskers
The reading brings up some very interesting points. One that is not really dicussed is the FAA/NTSB relationship. After evry accident the NTSB has a list of factors that would like to see improvements in. The faa does not always force manufactures to make these changes for many reasons. Cost is always the biggest factor. Airlines and the aircraft companies don't want to do massive refits so they fight back and forth to reach a compromise. Now the other thing to consider in the web site is the lifting body and flying wing. lifting bodies had not been really seen nor tested back in those days. So i'm sure most people thought of them a science fiction. The flying wing was very problemmatic until fly-by-wire and computer flight controls came along. Human pilots could not control the aircarft to a point that they felt comfortable in it.

JMHO

I agree with Huskers. I don't see a conspiracy here. What I do see here is "Money." That's what it's all about in todays world. For this to take effect the airlines would have to undergo a major change in re-designing their aircraft. They just don't want to do it. They may not care about passengers but I can assure they're just fine with what they've got out there right now because they're making money off of it. Nothing more.

On a side note I do have to say that the Burnelli would kind of look like a UFO if took to the skies. At least I think it would.

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by huskers
The reading brings up some very interesting points. One that is not really dicussed is the FAA/NTSB relationship. After evry accident the NTSB has a list of factors that would like to see improvements in. The faa does not always force manufactures to make these changes for many reasons. Cost is always the biggest factor. Airlines and the aircraft companies don't want to do massive refits so they fight back and forth to reach a compromise. Now the other thing to consider in the web site is the lifting body and flying wing. lifting bodies had not been really seen nor tested back in those days. So i'm sure most people thought of them a science fiction. The flying wing was very problemmatic until fly-by-wire and computer flight controls came along. Human pilots could not control the aircarft to a point that they felt comfortable in it.

JMHO

I agree with Huskers. I don't see a conspiracy here. What I do see here is "Money." That's what it's all about in todays world. For this to take effect the airlines would have to undergo a major change in re-designing their aircraft. They just don't want to do it. They may not care about passengers but I can assure they're just fine with what they've got out there right now because they're making money off of it. Nothing more.

On a side note I do have to say that the Burnelli would kind of look like a UFO if took to the skies. At least I think it would.

Engineering, physics, and thrifty application of technologies is the issue. When you say "money," the problem as in the Grace Commission understanding is "fraud, waste, and abuse." Our government responded to this with even more of the same. As long as the most critical issues of gradual monetary reform are ignored we will have more wars, higher taxes, and petty tyrants among us "eating out of our substance." These were the original premises of our nationhood, to insure for a future that would be free from so many of the offices and interventions that drain the commons for the sake of a few.

The Bernelli aircraft is an example of an innovation that proceeded "too late," eg. 1920 or so! A consortium of design would not allow efficient and effective applied science, engineering, and safety advantages. The best designs were kept in the inventor's garage, if you will. Such advantages interferred with detailed projections of loans to be granted, aircraft to be built, the future of monetary relationships, oil to be bought and burned.

Think of Bernelli and its efficiencies in the same light as a mythical carbeurator gaining more miles a gallon, but the only difference is that Bernelli had efficiencies that were proven! Conventional and dominant designs have not fundamentally changed since the 1930s with exception to certain military planes in the "held blameless clause," regarding patents.

I don't know about anyone else but public safety when measured against raw figures and greater debt, is consistently cast aside in such a manner as to question even the humanity of the elite. Don't they breathe the same air? Don't they want healthy food, clean air for themselves at least? Did Clinton really drink diet coke and say "I don't remember," and he is an idiot who believes false data from the Monsanto and Searle? I suppose even Bush drinks diet coca cola, which makes you fat by increasing carbohydrate cravings. I don't want to get too carried away with this analogy, but I think the point is strong.

Evidence of the continuing central world authority is that no third world country develops energy, and efficiency inventions. It would appear that technological suppression is a world-wide phenomenon, and may be a function of the all Intelligence Agencies.

Originally posted by huskers
The reading brings up some very interesting points. One that is not really dicussed is the FAA/NTSB relationship. After evry accident the NTSB has a list of factors that would like to see improvements in. The faa does not always force manufactures to make these changes for many reasons. Cost is always the biggest factor. Airlines and the aircraft companies don't want to do massive refits so they fight back and forth to reach a compromise. Now the other thing to consider in the web site is the lifting body and flying wing. lifting bodies had not been really seen nor tested back in those days. So i'm sure most people thought of them a science fiction. The flying wing was very problemmatic until fly-by-wire and computer flight controls came along. Human pilots could not control the aircarft to a point that they felt comfortable in it.

JMHO

The efficiencies of the Bernelli Aircraft, is so great that presumably one would only be required to build half the number of aircraft to carry the same weight in cargo or passengers. Actually only a different kind of vertically integrated company would foresee the advantages add up the balance sheet and move it forward. For example say Fedex started banking, petroleum and other subsidiaries. Then it would not be a matter say of banking and oil ganging up and telling Detroit to build cars to consume more gasoline. But if the right combination of cost efficiencies in that vertical integration actually wanted to compete in a world market, then the voice of science, safety, reason, and logic prevail. Certain kinds of economic coercion must do a take to the wayside, because the benefits for our world and to mankind are too great.

This topic has caught a strong spot of my interests... I will look up some information and post it here.

I am in the thought of that at the time of design and patent, it probubly was suddenly realized the technology advance could be a huge jump in military aircraft technology and design, and would probubly be a national security issue worthy of supressing for the advancement of US airpower.

Surely the gov does assume liabilities, but it appears that the commercial outfits do not cross the line of stealing patented ideas this big, but a gov contractor could use them for military planes without reprisal.

I did look into the Burnelli Corporation and Aircraft... here are the results:

Overall Information:
www.aircrash.org...

Note the last design on this page... is fairly bizzar... it has close concept to the Eurofighter 2000.

Projects from 1939 to 1964:
www.eu.aircrash.org...

Informal site which may be of some very decent reference: unrealaircraft.com...

That's all I have right now.

Hope this helps some. I'll post more as I get them and find them.

I'm really surprised that interest was lost in this topic as long ago as 2004, while Burnelli's 1920/40s designs are still so current, that even Douglas wanted to build a similar airplane and a there has been a suggestion of something similar being included in the US space programme.

Politics caused the loss of this design and we're all probably worse off because of a decision made in anger by President Roosevelt, who threw his toys out of his pram when Burnelli told him he didn't need government money, because one of his backers was a Roosevelt adversary.

Anyone who read the links supplied earlier would have noted all of these points.

1. A cylinder is stronger than a box.

2. A cylinder is an infinitely better pressure vessel than a box.

3. Lifting body aircraft have been tried throughout aviation history. Aircraft like the P-38, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 are all lifting body.

4. Fuel tanks in the fuselage? No thanks. I'd rather have them on the wings where they can break off and be left behind the fuselage in a crash landing.



This conspiracy theory is rubbish people.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

4. Fuel tanks in the fuselage? No thanks. I'd rather have them on the wings where they can break off and be left behind the fuselage in a crash landing.

Most large civil passenger aircraft have a center wing box fuel tank these days