Burnelli Aircraft: The following article is an amalgamation comprised of many that are separately

published on various websites and is an attempt to describe the Burnelli story in a logical & chronological order

www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/Canada_Car/ccf_part_3_CBY3.htm
“Vincent J Burnelli was born in Temple, Texas, on November 22,
1895. In his early youth, Burnelli showed an interest in aviation.

In 1915, Burnelli and a friend, John Carisi, were designing gliders in

New York. By 1915 the two had designed and built their first
powered open biplane. They tested the plane at Hempstead Plains
Airfield, which was later renamed Roosevelt Field cargo. World War
I created a demand for aviation designers and Burnelli used the
opportunity to establish himself in the aircraft industry. He worked at
various times for the International, Continental, and Lawson aircraft companies as engineer, designer and
superintendent. He designed the first aerial torpedo plane.

As an aircraft designer Burnelli promoted a revolutionary design concept. He based his design on lift-body
theory. The theory is simple. A convention airplane design (a tubular body with wings) is designed to carry
people or cargo. The wings provide all the lift needed to carry the drag of the body. Lift-body design, on the
other hand, created the body of the aircraft in the shape of a wing, thus providing lift from the body (get the
name?) added to the lift from the wings.”

Burnelli designed and built several aircraft throughout the 1920‟s, 1930‟s and
1940‟s to prove this theory. He patented several devices; his aircraft proved
superior to many contemporaries. Although well respected as a designer
during this time, politics appears to have played a great part in the lack of
funding for his later designs. The following is a composium of internet
research concerning the man and his contributions towards aircraft
development.

www.eu.aircrash.org/burnelli

Burnelli's Lifting Fuselages

Aeroplane Monthly, March 1980 issue, starting at page 144

HOWARD LEVY and RICHARD RIDING describe the series of unusual lifting fuselage aeroplanes designed
by Texan Vincent J. Burnelli.

Many aircraft designers have pursued radical ideas throughout their aeronautical careers. Men such as Professor
G. T. R. Hill Dr. Alexander Lippisch, Horten and Kallinin, who experimented with tailless aircraft, were
convinced that such a configuration represented the ultimate in flying safety and controllability.

Others believed that, for sheer aerodynamic efficiency, the flying wing was the only answer. They argued that,
by leaving out everything but the wing, one could fly faster and further than conventional aircraft on
comparable power.

One of the keenest supporters of this theory was Professor Hugo Junkers who, as early as 1909, envisaged large
flying wing aeroplanes capable of carrying hundreds of passengers over vast distances. In 1923 his ideas
1
progressed as far as the drawing board, and plans were produced for a 262ft span flying wing capable of
carrying 100 people. Yet despite the paper advantages, only Northrop was to put a flying wing into production
with their YB 35 (see Aeroplane Monthly, January and February 1974.)

A designer who pursued yet another avenue of research was Vincent J. Burnelli. When he died on June 22,
1964, he had spent 50 of his 69 years designing and building aeroplanes. Although his formative years were
occupied with light aeroplanes and even a helicopter, he is remembered for his unconventional lifting fuselage
transport aeroplanes, a theme he was to develop from 1920 until his death.

These articles are concerned with these rather ugly but functional designs, and it is hoped that a separate
appraisal of his earlier and equally interesting products will be published before too long. The basic theme
behind Burnelli's lifting fuselage theory was that the fuselage, by way of its large surface area and aerofoil
shape, could contribute as much as 50 per cent of the aeroplane's lift, thus giving all kinds of advantages over
conventional aeroplanes, particularly with regard to safety and performance.

RB-1
In 1920 Burnelli teamed up with T. T. Remington, and the
Airliner Engineering Corporation of Amityville was formed at
Long Island, New York, to build the first Burnelli aeroplane to
incorporate his lifting fuselage. Designated RB-1, this 74ft
span biplane transport looked like nothing else that had been
built up to that time.

The main feature was its enormous slab fuselage, shaped like
an aerofoil in section and sufficiently wide at the nose to house
two 55 h.p. Scottish-built Galloway Atlantic engines side by
side without the propeller arcs overlapping. The fuselage
retained the same width from front to rear, tapering in section
to a knife edge at the tail and providing a useful lifting area of
504 sq ft. Although the parasite drag of two individual engine
nacelles was

eliminated, it was considered by some that the disadvantages of having two propellers situated so close to one
another, their consequent blanketing effect, and the effect of the thick aerofoil section's airflow around the tail
rather outweighed any advantage gained by such an arrangement. The fuselage was built up on three transverse
plywood partitions and covered with corrugated duralumin. The forward section housed the two pilots, in open
cockpits, while the middle section contained the roomy passenger cabin with cushioned seats for 32 passengers
and the tapering tail section supported the tail unit.

The wings of the RB-1 were built on an orthodox wooden framework and were fabric covered. It appears that
the RB-1, bearing the serial number 9182, did all that its designer claimed, except that it lacked good directional
control. It was very sluggish in turns, which had to be made with as little bank as possible. The first RB-1 was
lost at Staten Island, New York, in 1923, when a violent storm immersed it in salt water and rendered it
irreparable.

Evidence suggests that a second RB-1 was built within a year of the first machine's appearance. Similar in basic
outline, it was powered by a pair of 420 h.p. Liberty XII engines, had twin-wheel main undercarriage units
reminiscent of those on the Vickers Vimy, extra cabin glazing, balanced ailerons and reduced fin area. The large
frontal radiators of the Liberties were eventually replaced by vertical units mounted against the forward centre
section struts.
2
RB-2
This aircraft probably became the next machine, the RB-2 of
1924, claimed to be the world's first freight aeroplane.
Following the loss of the RB-1 No 1 in 1923, that machine's
Galloway Atlantic engines and single-wheel main
undercarriage units were apparently installed in the RB-1 No
2, which had its original, fabric covered wings replaced by
new units covered in corrugated duralumin, making the RB-2 a
completely metal covered aircraft. Its fuselage contained an
18ft x14ft passenger cabin capable of accommodating 25
passengers in "parlour car" comfort, there being ample stand-
up headroom. Alternatively, the RB-2 could be converted to
carry 6,000lb of freight, plus a crew of three.

Weights for the RB-2 are quoted in tons! Grossing out at about
nine tons, the aeroplane weighed five tons empty. This
demanded too much from the engines, for the performance
was hardly sprightly; the maximum speed was around 110 m.p.h., and the cruise some 20 m.p.h. less. However,
what it lacked in speed the RB-2 made up for in other respects. It was claimed that because the lifting fuselage
accounted for around 50 per cent of the total lift, the wings were of 30 per cent less span than comparable
aeroplanes carrying the same weight. Fuel consumption was also claimed to be 20 per cent less than comparable
craft, and sufficient could be carried for 36hr flying.

The RB-2 was demonstrated at Curtiss Field, and also before the Army Air Corps at Mitchell Field, Long
Island, on August 7/8, 1924, when it reached an altitude of 4,200ft in the hands of Burnelli pilot Romer Weyant
and Navy pilot Lt George Pond.

The following year the RB-2 demonstrated its load-carrying capabilities in

a spectacular fashion when Hudson Motors used the aeroplane to carry an
Essex auto on an aerial sales tour. Automobile producers in America are
not known for small cars, and the RB-2 was capable of carrying two!

Vincent Burnelli used the above as his sales pitch, and all subsequent
Burnelli types incorporated all these features. Next month we will look at
the first of the Burnelli monoplanes.

It is reported that the RB-2 was fitted with more powerful engines at this
time, probably 650 h.p. Rolls Royce Condors, it is doubtful whether it
would have carried such a load with its original power plant. The aircraft
was later sold to the Aerial Transport Company, with whom it flew freight
for eight years before finally being scrapped for its metal. The RB-2 was Burnelli's last biplane to embody his
lifting fuselage principle; all subsequent designs being monoplanes. They were to follow design criteria which
had already been largely proven by the biplanes. Some of the criteria were still theoretical, but they are listed
briefly as follows:

1. Propellers operate close together, thus providing maximum flight efficiency and excellent single-
engine controllability in the event of engine failure. In the event of propeller failure their location ahead
of the cabin structure precludes the blades striking the fuselage or tearing loose any sustaining structure.

3
2. Engines and their strong mounts protect the pilot and passenger section in the event of a crash
landing. The major strength of the structure is incorporated in the front bulkhead, as the engine loads,
landing gear, front wing root and floor loads are applied to this member, thus providing extra passenger
protection. (This was later borne out in a spectacular crash.)

3. Pilot's and mechanic's compartments permit access to the engines for minor repairs and adjustments.
Also the retractable undercarriage, when fitted, is visible and accessible for in-flight repairs and
adjustments and emergency lowering in the event of mechanical failure.

4. Aerofoil fuselage section provides approximately 50 per cent of the lift at cruising speed, reducing
non-lifting body air resistance More than 60 per cent of the weight and strength of the structure
surrounds and protects the passenger cabin section for maximum resistance to telescoping, the square
box section of this element being far more resistant to collapse than a tubular unit consisting of fewer
parts. 5. Wings are of a reduced span and area owing to body lift, reducing drag and weight. Bending
movements due to overhung lift are reduced about 40 per cent at the wing roots.

6. Fuel tanks are installed at a greater distance from, and out of line with, the engine, thus reducing the
risk of fire hazard.

7. The baggage and freight compartment, also containing the retractable tail wheel (when fitted), is
accessible for in-flight inspection and servicing.

8. Twin tail booms support the tail surfaces with maximum rigidity.

Burnelli RB-1 No 2 data:

Power plant -- Two 420 h.p. Liberty XII

Dimensions
Span -- 74ft
Length -- 42ft
Maximum height -- 18ft 6in
Total wing area -- 1,323 sq. ft.
Lifting fuselage area -- 504 sq. ft.
Chord -- 10ft 6in
Gap -- 11ft 6in
Weights
Empty weight --8,121 lb
Gross weight -- 14,621 lb
Performance
Maximum speed -- 105 m.p.h.
Stalling speed -- 45 m.p.h.
Climb to 5,000ft -- 10min
Range -- 760 miles
minimum weight.

Initial objections to twin boom design were caused by twisting of the centre section of the wings. This
was later overcome by increasing the depth and torsional rigidity of the aerofoil fuselage.

4
 9. Windows are located below the outboard wings, permitting unobstructed view from the cabin. The
wide body provides large cubic capacity for payload. In the event of ditching the flotation qualities of
the wide body are advantageous.

Burnelli's Lifting Fuselages

Aeroplane Monthly, April 1980 issue, starting at page 172

In part two of their article HOWARD LEVY and RICHARD RIDING describe the first Burnelli monoplane
transports and the experimental high-lift GX-3.
CB-16
Last month we covered Vincent Burnelli's biplane lifting-fuselage transports. The first monoplane to embody
his lifting fuselage principal was the CB-16, built during 1928 for Paul W. Chapman, a banker and President of
Sky Lines Inc. This high wing, twin-engined aircraft claimed a
number of firsts for passenger transports in addition to being
the forerunner of the really plush executive aircraft so common
today. The CB-16 was the first twin-engined aircraft to have a
retractable undercarriage, and was also claimed to be the first
twin capable of maintaining altitude on one engine at designed
gross weight. An all-metal aircraft, the CB-16 had wings of
Burnelli's own design. They were constructed of five "former-
ribs" supporting lateral stringers which ran from tip to tip, the
whole being covered with sheets of corrugated aural. Of very
thick section, the wings tapered slightly in plan form towards
the tips. Large streamlined struts braced the undersides of the
wings, which were fitted high on the fuselage sides, the top
wing surface being flush with the fuselage top decking.

The fuselage was 36ft long and

12ft wide and such was its
design that it reduced the CB-
16's landing speed by 12 per
cent. Its construction
comprised a truss framework
covered with corrugated aural
sheet. One of the CB-16's
many novel features was its
tubular steel engine mounts,
which were pivoted at the front
corners of the fuselage and
were not only detachable, but
could be swiveled outwards to
facilitate engine changing and
overhaul. Both of the 500 h.p.
Curtiss Conqueror engines were accessible from inside the fuselage during flight.

The cabin, 18ft long, 11ft 4in wide and 5ft 6in high, was luxuriously appointed, even by modern standards. Up
to 20 passengers could be accommodated in heavily-upholstered swivel chairs which were both roomy and
comfortable, as well as being fully reclining. The cabin interior was upholstered in grey, had a large lounge in
5
the centre, and was heated and well ventilated. At the rear of the cabin was a stainless steel galley with
refrigerator and hot plate. Washroom facilities with running water and a lavatory were also provided.

A panel at the rear of the cabin housed the radio equipment, which had a range of 100 miles. The entire cabin
was soundproofed with balsa wood, and with the special silencers fitted to the engines it was claimed that the
CB-16's interior was as quiet as that of a motor car. Electric lighting was fitted throughout, with additional
sockets for extra lighting if required. Only the pilots had to endure comparative discomfort in their open
cockpits, though doors and windows in the bulkhead behind them prevented their being entirely isolated.

Total cost of the CB-16 was $230,000, of which $90,000 went on design and engineering costs.

A fuel tank in each wing and a 440gal tank in the cabin beneath the central lounge gave the CB-16 a total
capacity of about 1,000gal. With a full load the aircraft had a range of 800 miles at a cruising speed of 115
m.p.h. The CB-16 was built at Aeromarine's Keyport, New Jersey, plant, where Burnelli had rented tools and
space. After completion the aircraft was moved by barge to the new Newark Airport, which was still under
construction, and during Christmas week of 1928 Lt. Leigh Wade and Lt. James H. Doolittle made the 40min
maiden flight from Newark's cinder runway. During the flight the CB-16 and its retractable undercarriage
performed faultlessly.

Tests continued at Newark the very next day, and were later continued at Curtiss Field, Long Island. Further
tests followed at the Army's Bolling Field, Washington, where particular attention was paid to single-engine
flying and undercarriage retraction tests. On one flight Lt Wade was taking off from Bolling with a full load of
passengers when he lost an engine. He continued to climb out to 1,000 ft, making a wide circuit of Washington
before returning to Bolling to make a faultless single-engine landing.

During 1929 owner Paul Chapman made the CB-16 available for tests of the Cabot Adams aerial recovery
system, intended for picking up mail from the SS Leviathan, America's largest steamship at that time, which
was 300 miles out at sea. During tests at Keyport, New Jersey, disaster struck. The CB-16 had recently
undergone maintenance, and unbeknownst to the pilot, Lt George Pond, the aileron control cables had been
accidentally crossed. As the aircraft became airborne after take off it banked, rapidly reaching a near-vertical
position as the pilot tried to correct his attitude. The aircraft crashed, and when it came to rest Pond and his co-
pilot were unhurt, saved from almost certain death by the CB-16's robust construction and the forward position
of the engines.

Burnelli GX-3.
In the meantime Burnelli had been working on another
unorthodox design which not only incorporated his lifting
fuselage principle but also featured a variable camber wing.
The GX-3 was a one third scale design entered for the 1929
Guggenheim Safe Aircraft Competition. Millionaire Daniel
Guggenheim had earlier opened a fund to promote air
mindedness in America and to further the development of
commercial aircraft as a means of transporting people and
cargo. The Safe Aircraft Competition was announced in
1927, and its object was "to achieve a real advance in the
safety of flying through improvement in aerodynamic
characteristics of heavier-than-air craft without sacrificing
the good, practical qualities of present day aircraft." The
competition attracted the interest of several companies, including Handley Page, who entered the H.P.39
Gugnunc, fitted with H.P. slots.
6
The Burnelli GX-3 was the first multi-engined aircraft to feature full span, high-lift flaps, as well as variable
chord and camber, achieved by having a fixed surface between the front and rear spars with the leading and
trailing edges sliding fore and aft over it. The wings' "droop snoot" leading edges deflected to 35º and endplates
were fitted to prevent tip loss, in addition to flaps that deflected 30 degrees. The GX-3 was flown with two
types of lateral control. One version had under slung ailerons at the wing tips, and the other had narrow chord
outboard panels which pivoted on tubes extending from the wing proper.

The undercarriage was also very unusual, each unit being mounted in streamlined housings under the roots of
the centre-section and comprising two Goodyear Air wheels of different diameter arranged in tandem, the front
wheels being smaller than the rear. A small skid was positioned at the rear extremity of the wheel housing.

The GX-3 was powered by two 90 h.p. American ADC Cirrus III engines mounted at the front corners of the
centre-section. Behind and between the engines a crew of two sat side by side in an open cockpit fitted with
dual controls.

Unfortunately, the GX-3 arrived at Mitchell Field, New York, too late for the Guggenheim tests, but its
S.T.O.L. performance was reportedly outstanding. It could operate from a 150ft radius circle, and its speed
range was impressive, with a maximum speed of 135 m.p.h. and a landing speed as low as 30 m.p.h. The
intention was to build a full-size tri-motor transport based on the GX-3, but nothing came of the project.
Instead, Burnelli was to continue his researches with lifting fuselage transports along the proven lines of the
CB-16.

During 1929 Vincent Burnelli teamed up with Inglis M. Uppercu, a former car distributor who had earlier built
seaplanes for the Navy. He was also the backer behind the Aeromarine Plane & Motor Corp, of Keyport, New
Jersey. The Aeromarine facilities were reformed as the Aeromarine Klemm Corp, with Uppercu as President
and Burnelli as Vice President and chief designer. It was the company's intention to produce the successful
German designed Klemm low-wing sporting aircraft under licence, and to develop the Burnelli lifting-fuselage
transport aircraft.

UB-20
The first of the latter to appear
was a 20-passenger aircraft
designated having large
reclining chairs and berths for
night flying in addition to a
lavatory, a galley, and baggage,
mail and radio equipment
compartments. In accordance
with normal Burnelli practice,
the engines were accessible in
flight, and the aircraft had good single-engine performance which enabled it to maintain flight on one engine
with a full load.

Whereas the RB-2 carried a car inside its cabin (see last month), the UB-20 once carried one beneath the
fuselage when the Sun Oil Company contracted Burnelli to transport a Ford under the aircraft for publicity
purposes.

7
American Business Review, March 15, 1930
AERONAUTICAL
Entirely new 20-passenger plane produced by Uppercu-Burnelli
aircraft Corp.
Designed by a Vincent J. BURNELLI

In reviewing the second annual aviation show held recently in New

York, there is no doubt but that the most interesting exhibit, and one
which was surrounded all times by an interested crowd both of
laymen and technical men, was that of the Uppercu-Burnelli aircraft
Corp., which had on display a new 20-passenger plane design in
completely new lines.

The machine is, in our opinion, one of the most important

contributions to aircraft design made in some years. The most
interesting feature is the design of the fuselage, which is
incorporated with the wings in such a manner that it performs the
functions of the wing, and adds a lift of more than 1500 pounds to the effective lifting wing area, instead of
being deadweight, as other planes.

The craft is twin motored, one motor being on each side of the nose, or entering edge, of the fuselage. We have
never before seen any plane with such a roomy cabin as the UB-20, the interior being more reminiscent of a
Pullman car than an airplane. The chairs are big, and there's ample room between them, so that one could ride
for long distances without feeling cramped.

The UB-20 has the highest percentage of useful of any heavier-than-air machine in use. It can lift more than its
own weight, which is 9067 pounds empty, of which 4400 is designed for fuel and oil. The cruising radius is
1000 miles, and the ceiling is 17,000 feet. The maximum speed is 165 mph. The motors are 850 horse-power.

As we have said, there is no doubt that the UB-20 is the sensation of 1930 in the aviation world, and we
anticipate the appearance of these machines in considerable numbers for mail, freight and passenger service.
The plane was designed by Vincent J. Burnelli, one of the best-known in aviation circles today. It embodies
many of Mr. Burnelli's own designs and inventions, and a large number of these transports are now under
construction at the company's plant at Keyport, New Jersey.

It was claimed that all Burnelli transport aircraft were easily converted to seaplanes, but it is not known if any
were so modified. Certainly the Aeromarine Klemm Company fitted a Klemm with an amphibious
undercarriage. This curious modification was reminiscent of the GX-3 undercarriage, with each float
incorporating two wheels in tandem, the rear wheel being larger than the front one. Such was the design that the
Klemm could be landed on the water without the wheels being retracted. It was intended that this type of float
gear should be available for the large transports, but no record of an amphibious Burnelli seems to survive.

8
Burnelli's Lifting Fuselages
Aeroplane Monthly, May 1980 issue, starting at page 234

RICHARD RIDING and HOWARD LEVY continue the history of the unconventional Burnelli aircraft with
a description of the UB-14 airliner, of which only two examples were built. The first was destroyed when it cart
wheeled across Newark Airport, while the second survived the war and is thought to have ended up in Russia.

UB-14
Development of the 14-passenger UB-14 commenced in 1933 at the
Uppercu-Burnelli factory at Keyport, New York. The aircraft
followed the general layout of previous Burnelli transports, and
incorporated the Burnelli lifting fuselage concept. This was really a
very large aerofoil-shaped centre section, deep enough to
accommodate passengers and crew in place of the conventional
fuselage. This centre-section incorporated the engines and the
undercarriage in addition to the large passenger cabin.

With a length of lift and a width of 12ft, the cabin was 5ft 4in high
and was luxuriously fitted out. Cabin heating was thermostatically
controlled, and there was proper ventilation and electric lighting. Aft of the cabin was a toilet and a
cargo/baggage compartment. Additional cargo space was available in the wings. The two pilots sat side-by-side
in an enclosed cabin between the engines in the leading edge of the centre section, from where they had
excellent all-round vision. The glazed cabin roof could slide back, and it was possible for the pilots to look aft
through the cabin windows below the wing.

Construction of the UB-14 was all metal, like its

predecessors, with stressed flat aural skins over an
extruded aural framework, very similar to the UB-20.
Welded chrome-moly was used in the engine mountings,
Landing gear and main fittings. The undercarriage, which
retracted forwards, could be retracted in 45sec and
lowered in 12sec. It was not only visible from the, pilot's
cockpit, but was accessible in flight in case of
malfunction.

The wings, of tapering chord and thickness, were

attached to the upper edges of the centre section and
braced by parallel struts to the lower edges. Because the
engines and undercarriage were incorporated within the centre-section the wings were not required to bear the
stress and strain of landing, engine vibration, torque loads or the extraordinary loads of single-engine flying as
with conventional twin aircraft. The outer wings had two spars to take the lift loads, the internal structure being
built up of extruded sections. The UB-14 had wing flaps, and Burnelli claimed that it was the first multi-engine
type so equipped. The retractable tail wheel could swivel through 360 degrees.

The two supercharged 680 h.p. Pratt & Whitney Hornet engines were mounted side by side in the centre-section
leading edge, sufficiently close to each other to give good, safe asymmetric performance. Petrol and oil tanks,
sufficient for 900 miles range, were located in the wings.

9
The prototype UB-14, registered X14740, first flew
in late 1934. Its life was short, far on January 13,
1935, it crashed in spectacular fashion at Newark
Airport. The following extract comes from the
accident report by test pilot Louis T. Reichers (later
Colonel, Chief of Engineering Section, Air
Transport Command):

“The indicated airspeed was 195 m.p.h. at the time

it became essential for me to make a crash landing. I flew the ship into the ground from about 200ft altitude and
estimated the speed of contact at about 130 m.p.h., with the right wing being nearly vertical and absorbing first
shock. The impact caused the airplane to cartwheel, tearing off the engines and crushing the wings and tail
group, with the body tumbling throughout but remaining intact. No fuel leaked from the wings. It is my firm
belief that the box-body strength of this type, combined with the engines forward and the landing gear retracted,
saved myself and the engineering crew.
Also, had the cabin been fully occupied
with passengers with safety belts
properly attached, no passengers would
have been injured.”

The cause of the accident was later

found to be control system failure owing
to maintenance neglect, but the accident
served to justify Burnelli's faith in the method of construction
few conventional aircraft crashing in similar circumstances
would have had survivors to tell the tale.

Following the crash of the prototype a second model, designated

UB-14B, was built. Basically similar the first aircraft, the UB-
14B incorporated various improvements in detail design such as
aileron trim tabs and the like. It, too, was originally powered by
680 h.p. Pratt & Whitney nine cylinder air cooled radial engines,
but was later re-engined with 750 h.p. Hornets when it was
approved at a gross weight of 17,500lb compared with the
prototype's gross weight of 14,200lb. Initial test flying was
undertaken by Clyde Pangborn, and such was the performance of
the aircraft that foreign countries began to show real
interest in licence-building the UB-14. In July 1936
the Scottish Aircraft & Engineering Company Ltd was
set up to build a version of the UB-14 at premises in
Willesden. Interest was also shown by the Aviolanda
aircraft company at Papendrecht in Holland. Burnelli's
then organized a European tour to stimulate further
interest, and publicized a flight to Europe from
America. In spite of this advance publicity the UB-
14B was shipped to Southampton, where it was
destined to remain crated whilst customs dues were
haggled over.

10
Earlier in the year Amy Johnson (then Mollison) had shown interest in flying the UB-14B in an air race from
New York to France, scheduled for August 1937. The race, to commemorate the tenth anniversary of
Lindbergh's epic Atlantic flight, was to be sponsored by the French Government. Despite early enthusiasm by
both parties the plan fizzled out.

European demonstrations.
The UB-14B remained crated for many months until shipped to Holland, where it was re-erected for
demonstration. Finally, in December 1937, the aircraft, now registered NR15320, arrived for demonstration at
Hatfield home of the de Havilland company. In the expert hands of Clyde Pangborn, assisted by Capt. Rex
Stocken, the UB-14B astounded everyone with its short, steep take-offs, slow landing speeds and short landing
run. By this time the Scottish Aircraft & Engineering Company was in the hands of the Receiver. However, the
Cunliffe Owen company at Southampton would build a British version of the UB-14 the following year.

After returning to America, NR15320 was prepared for a non-stop around the world flight by Clyde Pangborn.
In its final configuration, with rounded rudders and revised engine cowlings, the UB-14B was painted bright red
and registered with the restricted category registration R15320 for the record flight. However, the flight was
cancelled because of the war, and the UB-14B went into service with TACA for three years during the war,
carrying freight between Miami and Honduras at an approved gross weight of 21,500lb. The aircraft was
reported out of service a year after war ended, and there are unconfirmed reports that it was shipped to Finland
and possibly Russia. It would be interesting to hear from any reader who has photographic proof of this.

Burnelli UB-14 data:

Dimensions
Span 71 ft 0 in
Length 44 ft 0 in
Height 10 ft 0 in
Total lifting surface 686 sq ft
Weights
Weight Empty
8,200lb(UB-14A)
9,200lb (UB-14B)
Weight Loaded
14,000lb (UB-14A)
17,500lb (UB-14B)
Performance
Max speed at 10,000 ft 225 m.p.h. (UB-14A)
Max speed at sea level 210 m.p.h. (UB-14A)
Max speed on one engine at 7,000 ft 150 m.p.h. (UB-14A)
Service Ceiling 22,000 ft
Stalling Speed 63 m.p.h.
Range at cruising speed 600 miles

Next month, we look at the British built Burnelli.

11
Burnelli's Lifting Fuselages
Aeroplane Monthly, June 1980 issue, starting at page 328

RICHARD RIDING traces the development of the British-

built redesign of the Burnelli UB-14, originally known as the
Clyde Clipper. Although several countries showed interest in
building the Burnelli UB-14 under licence, only Britain was to
build and fly one, albeit a much-modified example constructed
over a lengthy gestation period and after a false start.

Initially the Scottish Aircraft & Engineering Company

undertook production of the UB-14, and even got as far as
building a full-size wooden mock-up at their Wembley Scotia
Works. The mock-up was almost completed early in 1937,
when the Receiver was appointed to the company and work
stopped almost immediately. There were plans to power the
aircraft with two 1,490 h.p. Rolls-Royce Kestrels, and the
accompanying photographs show the mock-up with Kestrels
painted on.

On August 9, 1937, the story continued with the formation of

B.A.O. Ltd, a company formed to manufacture and deal in
aircraft and headed by Sir Hugh Cunliffe-Owen, Bt, chairman
of the British American Tobacco Co. The company changed its
name to Cunliffe-Owen Aircraft Ltd in May 1938, and new
premises were built at Eastleigh Airport, Southampton, where it
was hoped a much-modified version of the UB-14 would be put
into production. The Cunliffe-Owen redesign of the UB-14,
designated OA-1, was externally similar to the Burnelli design
but differed structurally, and was powered by two 710 h.p.
Bristol Perseus XIVC radial engines.

The OA-1, like its Burnelli forebears, was a high-wing semi-

cantilever monoplane, its aerofoil-section fuselage
accommodating the passenger cabin and engine nacelles and
forming the wing centre-section. This configuration prompted
many to incorrectly class the type as a flying wing. The tapering
outer wings, of same aerofoil section as the central body, were attached with their top surfaces in line with the
top of the fuselage. The outer wings were braced to the lower longerons of the fuselage by parallel struts.

The fuselage had four main transverse bulkheads. The first, in line with the front wing spar and together with
bulkhead 2, carried the loads of both wing spars and the bracing struts from the outer wings. The first bulkhead
had a door giving access to the pilot's cockpit. The third bulkhead incorporated a door giving access to the
retractable tail wheel, and the fourth bulkhead, which sloped forwards, carried the tail wheel loads. The entire
body was covered with Alclad stressed skinning.

The fuselage sides were divided into a number of small panels by vertical and horizontal stiffeners. Externally
there were five fore and aft roof stiffeners comprising heavy aural extrusions of inverted T-section which ran
12
from the first to the last bulkhead and transferred the air loads to the bulkheads. Two Rhodoid panels in the roof
acted as emergency exits and provided additional roof lighting. The fuselage floor was made up of transverse
corrugations covered with sheets of 3/16in plywood. Similar stiffeners to those on the roof were bolted to the
bulkheads.

The duralumin tail booms were rectangular metal boxes with D-shaped top and bottom fairings, and carried the
control cables. The all metal tail surfaces incorporated twin fins and rudders.

The strut-braced outer wing panels were of two spar construction. The wing ribs extended only between the two
spars and formed a strong torsion box. The slotted ailerons, of high aspect ratio, were split to prevent hinge
binding and were mass balanced. Split, hydraulically-operated flaps were fitted between the fuselage and the
ailerons. A third flap beneath the centre-section could be independently operated.

Burnelli had discovered that the fuselage flap offered a remarkable improvement in the maximum lift
coefficient. Farnborough accepted NACA's findings that the high lift fuselage contributed 20 per cent of the
total lift. Additional experiments in the New York University wind tunnel showed that the proportion of lift
provided by the outer wings and the fuselage varied considerably with incidence. At high angles of incidence
the greater part of the lift derived from the wings, the lift greatly increasing towards the centre as the incidence
was reduced. Under maximum conditions it was claimed that the fuselage provided 90 per cent of the total lift.

The hydraulically-operated main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles and could be operated
manually in the case of emergency. The tail wheel was of the fully castoring type and was central locking,
retracting forwards into the rear of the fuselage.

The two Perseus XIVC nine-cylinder sleeve valve radials drove three-bladed metal propellers and were cowled
in standard Bristol long-chord type cowls with controllable gills.

Total fuel capacity of the OA-1 was 650 gal, carried in eight wing tanks. The well-appointed cockpit was fully
instrumentated, and included automatic carburetion control and blind flying equipment. In common with normal
Burnelli practice the OA-1 had a luxurious passenger cabin, fully sound-proofed and equipped with 15 super
luxury Rumbold seats. The production version, the OA-1 Mk II, was planned to accommodate 20 passengers.

The completed OA-1, registered G-AFMB, made its first flight from Eastleigh on January 12, 1939. The eight-
minute flight was carried out by Clyde Pangborn, who was well satisfied with the aircraft's performance despite
earlier troubles with the differential braking system. The OA-1 was subsequently doped silver overall and
embarked on several months of test flying.

In 1940 the OA-1 was sent to Martlesham Heath where, on November 27, it received its Certificate of
Airworthiness. In 1941 the aircraft was impressed into RAF service but was not allocated an RAF serial
number. In June of that year it left for French Equatorial Africa, camouflaged but still in civil marks. It was
delivered to the Free French Air Force by Flt Capt Jim Mollison, ATA, and his crew of three ATA personnel. In
December 1943 the aircraft was observed in tricolour markings and devoid of identity markings except for the
cross of Lorraine.

The OA-l's ultimate fate remained a mystery until Aeroplane Monthly reader Norman Smith supplied details in
a letter published in the November 1979 issue.

In June 1940 Smith was stationed at EI Kabrit in Egypt. A few days before being posted elsewhere he saw the
OA-1 land, presumably, he thought, for servicing. However, when he returned to El Kabrit in August 1945 the
aircraft was still there but considerably the worse for wear. It was sitting in the salvage compound minus its
13
engines, outer wings and most of the interior fittings. On VJ night it was dragged from its temporary resting
place and took pride of place on top of the celebration bonfire.

Although details of the Cunliffe-Owen OA-1 Mk II were published during 1939, no further British versions of
the Burnelli were built, although Cunliffe-Owen went on to produce the Concordia, described in Aeroplane
Monthly for September 1979.

The final Burnelli design to progress beyond the drawing board is described next month.

Burnelli's Lifting Fuselages

Aeroplane Monthly, July 1980 issue,
starting at page 348

HOWARD LEVY and RICHARD RIDING

outline the projected Burnelli A-1 bomber of
the late 1930s, the wartime XCG-16A troop-
carrying glider and the CBY-3 Loadmaster,
the last Burnelli design to take to the air and
sole survivor of a remarkable breed.

Before describing the postwar CBY-3

Loadmaster, it is worth recording briefly two
interesting projects that preceded this all-
metal transport. The first, the A-l bomber,
only progressed as far as the wooden mock
up stage. Unsuccessfully entered for the
1935 Army Air Corps competitions, ultimately won by the Douglas B-18, the 84ft span A-l was designed to be
powered by two Allison V1710 engines. The mock up shows provision for a crew of five, a pilot and bomb
aimer, a nose gunner equipped with two machine guns, and gunners positioned in turrets located in each boom
aft of the engines. Although the design did not progress beyond mock up stage, Burnelli did modify the A-l into
a troop-carrying glider of mammoth proportions.

Designated XCG-16A, it was an all wood, 92ft span twin boom glider incorporating the characteristic and well-
tried Burnelli lifting fuselage principle. Designed by Harley Bowlus, and sometimes known as the Bowlus-
Burnelli, the XCG-16A was built during 1943 by General Airborne Transport Inc of Los Angeles, California.
Designed to carry 40 troops or a cargo payload of four tons, the glider had a loaded weight of 19,000lb. Two
cargo compartments measuring 15ft x 7ft and from 5 to 2 1/2ft in height were separated by a structural
bulkhead. Loading doors located in the leading edge were opened upwards by hand-jacks, the forward sections
of the floor hinging downwards to serve as loading ramps.

The crew's compartment atop the centre-section had provision for two in tandem under a continuous canopy.
The undercarriage was fully retractable. A large single fin and rudder was a departure from the traditional
Burnelli twin-fin configuration.

Two aircraft were contracted for the Army Air Corps, but only one aircraft was built and tested. A flight test
comparison was made with the Waco CG-13A at Wright Field, and the following figures show the XCG-16's
superior performance.

14
 XCG-16A CG-13A
H.p required to tow each glider
390 520
at design gross weight at 100 m.p.h
H.p. required to tow at 200 m.p.h. 1050 1630
Full gross landing speed (m.p.h.) 52 80
Max permissible speed (m.p.h.) 220 195
Stalling speed (flaps up) (m.p.h.) 55 84
Maneuverability at slow speeds Excellent Poor

Towing distance: The XCG-16A could be towed 25 per cent farther

than the CO-13A at same h.p. required and at comparable weights.

Burnelli's last bid to put his lifting fuselage principle into production came immediately after World War Two.
The Canadian Car & Foundry Company's subsidiary, the Cancargo Aircraft Manufacturing Company in
Montreal, built and tested the CBY-3 Loadmaster in 1945. Designed specifically for bush and jungle operation,
the Loadmaster owed much to the UB-14, described in the May issue.

As with earlier Burnelli designs, the outstanding feature of the Loadmaster was its aerofoil-shaped centre-
section capable of carrying large concentrated loads. In addition to carrying 22 passengers and a crew of three
there was 700 cu. ft. of space available for cargo. Two large freight doors, one each side of the fuselage,
enabled loads of up to 20ft in length to be accommodated, and the designer claimed that with minor
modification the Loadmaster could take a car with ease. It was claimed that the aerofoil section centre section
contributed up to 30 per cent of the total lift, and it comprised nearly 50 per cent of the total lifting surface.

The 20ftx26ft 6in long cabin was 7ft at its highest, and in freight configuration offered 2,070 cu.ft and 328 sq.
ft. of useful floor space. The roomy pilot's cabin was located well forward, between the engines, and offered the
usual advantages of previous Burnelli designs, including excellent forward view and good safety and
survivability in the event of a crash. A toilet and galley were situated at the rear of the main cabin.

Construction: The wings were all-metal, two-spar structures consisting of tapered outer wings with detachable
tips. The spars continued through the fuselage and were swept back in the outer wings. In addition to wing
flaps, an auxiliary flap was positioned below the fuselage. The all-metal fuselage was of a flat sided aerofoil
section, and carried the crew nacelle and engines in the nose. Twin booms extending aft carried the all-metal tail
unit. The twin fin and rudder tail unit had a high-set tail plane which extended outside the booms. Three
balanced elevators were positioned between and outboard of the booms. The main undercarriage retracted
forwards into the engine nacelles and the twin tail wheel unit retracted forwards into the fuselage. Initially the
Loadmaster was powered by two 1,200 h.p. Pratt & Whitney R-1830 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engines
enclosed in long chord cowlings with cooling gills. The engines were so close together that clearance between
the two three bladed propellers was only 16in. A total of 750 US gal was carried in tanks inboard of the wings.

The first flight of the Loadmaster took place from Cartierville Airport in August 1945. Registered CF-BEL-X,
the aircraft was flown extensively on demonstration flights but no orders were forthcoming. While work
continued on more advanced designs, none of which came to fruition, the Loadmaster, together with the design
rights, was acquired by Airlifts Inc of Miami and registered N17N. During the following years it passed through

15
various ownerships and spent some time in Venezuela, when it was painted in the livery of Rutas Aereas
Nacionales S.A. and registered W-X-ERC.

When the Loadmaster returned to the States it was re-engined with Wright R-2600s and flown by the Burnelli
Avionics Corporation, based at Friendship International at Baltimore. It also appeared in the livery of Ballard
Burnelli, based at Washington. The Loadmaster was also selected to fly on the Polar Basin Expedition, for
which it was fitted out by the Central Aircraft Corporation, but the venture never materialized. By the early
1960s the Loadmaster was beginning to look decidedly worn, and after Vincent Burnelli's death in 1964 his
widow tried to secure the aircraft for preservation. The Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association
expressed interest, and as far as is known the sole surviving Burnelli aeroplane is still in the Connecticut Air
Museum, hopefully a lasting memorial to her designer and the series of aeroplanes designed by him over a
period of 40 years.

The story of Burnelli would be incomplete without mention of some of the many projects that never proceeded
further than design or model stage. The more interesting of these are covered in the final part of the story, next
month.

Burnelli's Lifting Fuselage Projects

Aeroplane Monthly, October 1980 issue, starting at page 516

As a postscript to our recent series on Burnelli lifting fuselage aircraft we take a look at three projects which
never progressed beyond
the drawing board. Pictures
and details supplied by
HOWARD LEVY.

Illustrated on this page is

the Canadian Car &
Foundry B-2000B Super
Bomber. This 222ft span
aircraft was CCF's proposal in the B-36 competition in
1942. (Not quite a pure lifting fuselage, the layout was
nonetheless one consisting of a continuous wing from which
a forward fuselage section of similar depth projected this
being of rather Lancaster-like lines in the model). It was to
have been powered by eight Allison 3420s coupled in fours
so that each pair provided 5,000 h.p., totaling 20,000 h.p.
Armament called for a total of 14 20mm cannon in movable
turrets located in the nose, at each end of the tail booms and
in the upper and lower surfaces of the booms. With a normal
bomb load of 40,000lb the B-2000B's all up weight would
have been 220,000lb and the range 4,000 miles. The
designed top speed was 300 m.p.h.

16
Canadian Car & Foundry's V-1000 was designed by Charles Villiers,
and displayed a more advanced lifting fuselage design. This transport
aircraft would have utilized the lifting fuselage in its most advanced
form, almost absorbing the forward cockpit area and dispensing with
tail booms. Cargo space would have been incorporated into the large
wing/fuselage section span wise, permitting a reduced structure
weight and increased cabin capacity. It was designed to carry 135
passengers with baggage 4,500 miles non-stop; at 220 m.p.h running
at only 45% power thanks to the efficiency of the lifting fuselage.
Maximum endurance was put at 21 hours. The 220 ft. span was
comparable to that of the B-2000B, giving a wing area of 4,499 sq. ft.
Empty weight was estimated at 120,000 lb, gross weight 220,000 lb.
The National Research Council of Canada tested a wind tunnel
model, but no prototype V-1000 was built.

Burnelli Avionics
Corporation was
the last Burnelli
organization
actively to pursue
the Burnelli lifting
body concept. Illustrated top right and right was that
company's study for a safe, highly utilitarian and economical
aircraft powered by two Rolls-Royce 6,750 e.s.h.p. Tynes
with contra rotating propellers. The design embodied
emergency flotation and, wing release facilities in case of
ditching. The aircraft had a wing span of 122ft and a cargo
capability of 4,500cu ft. Alternative passenger versions were proposed.

Beautiful Burnellis
Sir, I would like to compliment you on the excellent historical
presentation of Burnelli Lifting Body aircraft (Aeroplane plane
Monthly, March-July, 1980). I am pleased to provide a photograph of
the Burnelli Cunliffe-Owen Clyde Clipper in free French markings
(see left). The picture was taken in North Africa during the war when
the aeroplane served as General de Gaulle's personal transport.

In 1949, I discussed the Clyde Clipper with Jimmy Mollison at the

Royal Aero Club in Piccadilly, and he related his interesting delivery
flight of it from Christchurch to Malta at the beginning of the war. He
said it was "a bloody fine aircraft" and be could not understand why more of them were not built A short time
later, Sir Dudly Cunliffe-Owen reported that he was at Christchurch when Jimmy Mollison took off into the fog
on the aforementioned delivery flight. He further commented that everyone at the time said the Clyde Clipper
had very superior qualities, but the Air Ministry determined that all emphasis should be placed on fighter and
bomber production.

I personally conducted a flight test analysis on the Burnelli CBY-3 in the early fifties, and I was astounded by
its delightful handling characteristics, superior performance and load carrying capabilities, as well as its
17
unexcelled safety features. The non-production of Burnelli aeroplanes is a long, sad and tragic story, and one
which is not complimentary to the United States Department of Defense and aerospace industry. One thing is
certain, however, Vincent Justus Burnelli will go down in history as the most brilliant genius of aircraft design.

Chelsea, CHALMERS H. GOODLIN London SW3.

Burnelli's Lifting Bodies - A Photographic Chronology

Burnelli RB-1 (1921)

1st Lifting-Body aircraft ever built U.S. Patent # 1,758,498 Filed: January 6, 1921
Issued: May 13, 1930

The caption for this picture which was found in what appeared to be a publication of the time states: "Taking off
from Curtis Field. This picture shows the width of the cabin, fourteen feet, and the manner in which this type of
design differs from the conventional types of airplane with narrow fuselages."

Bernelli RB-1 Front View

18
 "Flying Festival, Curtis Field, Garden City, Long Island, showing the Remington-Burnelli Airliner in the right
foreground take-on passengers for a trial flight."

The caption for this picture which was found in what appeared to be a publication of the time states: "Interior
view showing one-half of the cabin of the airliner with seating arrangements. The reverse side of the lounge
and the chairs along the other windows are of course not shown in this picture. Beyond the entrance door from
the vestibule can be seen the door to the baggage and express compartment."

19
The Remington Burnelli (RB) 1 was a 30-passenger transport. It was one of the largest if not the largest of its
time.

1924 - RB-2 (1924)

Vincent Justus Burnelli standing in front of the RB-2,

the world's largest air freighter at that time -- it was
even used as a flying show-room carrying an
automobile of the time.

20
1927 - CB-16 (1926)
America's first executive
airliner, built for P.W.
Chapman, Chairman of United
States Lines. The all metal
CB-16 was the first multi-
engine aircraft capable of
single engine performance at
its design gross weight and the
first American twin-engined
plane to employ the use of
retractable landing gear.

Rear view of 16-passenger transport showing fuselage width and pilot's location in nose with clear forward and
rearward visibility.

21
Bernelli GX-3-1929

The Burnelli GX-3 was an

experimental aircraft which
reduced to practice the use
of the breakaway leading
edge in combination with
high lift trailing edge flaps
(derivations of which
appear in the most modern
airplanes), wend plating of
wing-tips to reduce drag
(derivations of which
appear on many transports
but called "winglets") and
four-wheel landing gear.

La Guardia Airport, New York. In this picture,

even though it is hard to see, Jimmy Doolittle is
the pilot.

22
VINTAGE LITERATURE
by Dennis Parks,
Library/Archives director
(Vintage Airplane magazine)
Daniel Guggenheim International
Safe Airplane Competition
Part 5
Burnelli Entry

Of the 15 aircraft that showed up for the safe airplane competition trials at Mitchell field on Long Island, the
most unusual in concept was a Burnelli mono plane entry, X-124H. The 1930 edition of LICENSED
AIRCRAFT listed the aircraft as the Uppercu-Burnelli UB SS and registered to the Uppercu Burnelli Aircraft
Corp. of Keyport, New Jersey. It was registered in 1929 and carried the serial No. 10.

The aircraft was a Cirrus powered twin-engined mono plane. Among its features were four-wheel landing year,
twin tail, wing tips floating ailerons and, its most technically advanced feature, the variable camber wing. The
aircraft was described in the December 14, 1929 issue of Aviation.

"A combination of variable area and camber is employed among the many interesting features of the Burnelli
airplane built by the Uppercu Burnelli Corp. in the plant of the Aeromarine-Klemm Corp. at Keyport. This
airplane embodies a number of the features incorporated in former Burnelli machines."

"The most noteworthy of these features is the idea of a central airfoil body or fuselage intended to contribute lift
by virtue of its airfoil shaped profile. As in the case of former Burnelli planes, this machine, which is purely
experimental, is powered with two Cirrus engines mounted as closely as propeller clearance permits in the
leading edge of the structure, which constitutes the fuselage. These engines are mounted in such a way that their
longitudinal center lines are inclined outwardly at a small angle to the line of flight in horizontal plane. This has
been done in an effort to provide adequate rudder control when one engine is used alone, and is a feature
incorporated in former Burnelli creations."

"The variable area and camber device is a development worked out by Mr. Burnelli in collaboration with Mr. E.
Burke Wilford several years ago. The wing section is of medium thickness and of the portion between the spars
is rigidly mounted and braced. The design is such that the nose and trailing edge portion move outward and
downward, changing the curvature as well as the area. This is accomplished by a rack and pinion mechanism
with pinion gears mounted every five feet on
to torque shafts running parallel to the spars."

Burnelli U.S. Patent #1,917,428 issued July

11, 1933
"This sketch shows the variable camber and
wing area mechanism within the wing of the
Burnelli"

-- Aviation, Dec. 14, 1929."The shaft running

parallel to the forward spar is controlled by a hand wheel in the cockpit while that running parallel to the rear
spar is driven by a chain from the forward one. The pinion gears actuate curved rack members, the ends of
which are attached to the movable nose and trailing edge. These rack members are mounted on rollers and
guidance and their curvature provides the necessary change in camber. With the object of maintaining a
minimum of center of pressure travel, the mechanism has been designed to impart greater motion to the nose
23
sections than that of the trailing edge. Strap guides are placed at appropriate intervals to prevent the necessarily
flexible portion of the skin from crinkling."

"As previously mentioned, the airplane is constructed of metal throughout, aluminum alloy being used for the
greater portion of the wing structure, the magnesium alloy being employed in the construction of the racks and
guides. Another noteworthy feature of the Burnelli airplane is the landing gear which is of the four-wheel type
and is designed to eliminate the tail skid, this being necessary because of the high position of the tail which is
supported on outriggers from the airfoil shaped fuselage."

"The rear wheels, which are 22 by 10 inches,

are larger than the front ones and are mounted
approximately below the center of gravity with
no provision, other than the Musselman and
tires, to obtain deflection and landing. The
forward wheels or considerably smaller, being
12 by 5 inches, and are intended to prevent
nosing over. They are mounted a few feet
ahead of the rear wheels and the pairs on each
side are housed in streamlined fairings. At the
rear of each of these fairings is a small spoon
which acts to some degree like a tail skid and prevents the tail from coming in contact with the ground under
certain landing conditions."

"When the Burnelli plane was first submitted, and ailerons were mounted at the wing tips and controlled by
cables from the cockpit. Later this feature was modified and ailerons of considerably less cord and higher aspect
ratio were mounted below the wings near the
tips."

Burnelli U.S. Patent #1,774,474 issued August

26, 1930
"The wingtip installation showing the aileron
configuration tip plates." -- Aviation, Dec. 14,
1929

"The Burnelli plane has side-by-side seating

arrangement and is of the open type. The span
of the machine with tip ailerons was 49 feet and the length overall 26 feet, while the wing area was 216 square
feet. The fuselage is 8 feet wide and 15 feet long while the overall height of the plane is 9 feet 4 inches. The
weight empty is 1640 pounds and a gross weight is 2590 pounds."

Immediately after his presentation at Mitchell Field, the Burnelli mono plane was returned to Keyport, New
Jersey for modifications. A deadline of November 30 was set by the competition committee for its return, but
the aircraft did not appear and thus it was eliminated from the Safe Aircraft Competition. It would have been
interesting to have known its abilities. [Article reprinted from Vintage Airplane, July 6, 1992, pages 5 - 7]

24
Burnelli UB-20 (1924)
First American aircraft to employ the
use of flat metal stressed-skin
construction. In 1934, for
promotional purpose, the Sun Oil
Company employed the use of the
Burnelli UB-20 to carry the Ford
automobile shown, to sub-zero
temperatures at altitude to prove the
effectiveness of their petroleum
products under extremely low
temperature conditions. A mechanic
descended into the automobile and
started the engine at sub-zero
temperatures. This stunt was used in
a national advertising campaign for
the Sun Oil products. What aircraft could do this today? Following the CAA's complaints against retractable
landing gear, the UB-20 was built with a fixed gear.

The Ford car being attached under the UB-20 for its promotional flight for Sun Oil Co.

25
 This was the cover a Burnelli promotional
document for the UB-20. The inset shows the
overall layout of the cabin. Rear-most is a
lavatory and a galley.

"Looking forward in cabin of UB-20, showing large convertible chairs for passengers."

26
"Rearward view of cabin of the UB-20. At rear left is doorway to the galley, next to which is the radio room and
luggage compartment, on right of this compartment is the completely equipped washroom."

Burnelli UB-14 (1934)

UB-14 over Newark, New Jersey

27
 UB-14 on Tarmac

UB-14 over Manhattan 1934

28
1934- Bernelli UB-14 picture dedicated to Vincent Burnelli (Short) by Clyde Pangborn (Tall) (Woman
Unknown)

UB-14 Cabin Interior

29
 Burnelli UB-14 – 1934

The Burnelli Lifting-Body Principle of Design --

A 78+ year-old aircraft principle of design is the plane of the future.

Vincent Justus Burnelli, our company founder, invented, conceived and patented the Burnelli Lifting Body
Principle of Design. This Principle of Design, while not well known due to political forces, remains, since
1921, the foremost technology in airframe design.

During his life, starting in 1921, Vincent Burnelli applied his Lifting-Body Principle of Design to nine aircraft
(see photo section). Some of the advantages of his design principle:

 Improved Survivability in accidents (as demonstrated by UB-14 crash of 1935)

o More structure around occupants = better protection
 Reduced Fire opportunities in crash
o Segregation of Fuel & Engines = fire less likely from engine/fuel tank failure
o Segregation of Landing gear & Fuel = less likely fire from landing-gear collapse.
 Fuselage contributing to lift.
o Higher Weight Carrying Capacity
o Lower take-off and landing speeds
o Provides floatation in case of water landing
30
  General shape of fuselage
o Allows carrying twice the volume of similarly powered aircraft
o Allows more passenger comfort
o Allows access & repairs to many aircraft functions 'in-flight' (including landing gear).

Vincent Burnelli applied for and received a patent on this Principle of Design. He applied for it on January 6,
1921 and received the patent on May 13, 1930. The patent number is: 1,758,498. The lifting body is one of the
most important contributions to flight ever made and in 1944, Vincent Burnelli received the prestigious Fawcett
Award for "Major Contribution to the Scientific Advancement of Aviation" recognizing his achievement.

A long litany of political suppression achieved only

through corruption which is so wide-spread in the
aerospace industry that it can be called a conspiracy.
This conspiracy has so deprived Vincent Burnelli of the
ability to function in a free-market economy that he died
a pauper and we, at the Burnelli Company, have no
means of engaging in the free exercise of economic
activity. It is only through the help of volunteers around
the world that this great injustice to taxpayers and the
flying public at large is being exposed. These volunteers
have set up a web-site www.aircrash.org which exposes the entire conspiracy. If you want to know more about
the: who, what, why, where, when and how you won't be disappointed in the extent of the coverage of this
story.

How a Safer Airliner Might Look

What would a commercial airliner look like if it were designed to increase the chances that its passengers could
survive the impact of a crash?

To find out, The Newsday Magazine asked Charles A. SanGiovanni, a Huntington industrial designer with
extensive experience planning airplane interiors, to design such a plane after consulting with Prof. Edmund J.
Cantilli, a transportation safety expert. Their collaboration produced the design shown on these pages: a
crashworthy, as well as airworthy, commercial airliner based on pioneer airplane designer Vincent Burnelli's
principles and Cantilli's safety recommendations.

31
Burnelli's main idea was that the fuselage, which in conventional aircraft is basically a long cylinder, can supply
more than 50 per cent of an airplane's "lift" if it were designed in the shape of an airfoil. Inside Burnelli's
fuselage, SanGiovanni envisions seats for 162 passengers, with no one sitting in a group of more than three
across, and with room left over for wider seats and aisles.

Because of the additional lift, the plane could operate with

smaller engines and a lighter fuel load. More weight could be
devoted to safety features, such as better-anchored seats and
luggage bins. The fuselage would be sturdily constructed as a
single unit, instead of in tubular sections that are riveted
together, as it is in conventional planes, and its "skin" would
not be weakened where windows and doors are placed.

Could this plane fly? Burnelli built eight smaller "flying wings"
that did.

The Deadly Combination - Engines, Landing-Gear, Fuel

Tanks & Tires

Introduction: Contrary to the position maintained by officialdom, that most accidents are caused by pilot error,
there is ample evidence that most fatalities are caused by the "the irresponsible common practice of hanging
engines and landing gear onto fuel tank supporting structure in combination with excessively high take-off and
landing speeds on overstressed tires."

Think about it. Almost every commercial aircraft you fly on today has this ridiculously dangerous
configuration which has in fact not been altered since the 1930s. The fundamental flaws of this conventional
configuration are still present in most jet transports today. The National Fire Protection Association recognized
these flaws in 1947 and made this statement: "... all these potential hazards [placing tremendous quantities of
gasoline in frail containers directly behind high horsepower reciprocating engines, adding the lubricating oil and
hydraulic fluids, the electrical, exhaust and heating system, ... auxiliary power units, ... batteries] are placed in

32
juxtaposition, and, in such proximity, become essentially uncontrollable, or, at least, unpredictable, and highly
explosive ."

George H. Tryon, III, Secretary of the National Fire Protection Association, in

the Quarterly of the N.F.P.A. (Vol 40, No. 4) of April 1947 on page 259

Newsday Magazine 12/12/82 - Most Aircraft Deaths Unnecessary

In 1983, Professor Cantilli, of New York Polytechnic said: "The use of Burnelli airliners would reduce air crash
fatalities by 85%." Here are some of the reasons why he made this statement. The Conventional Airliner
practice of attaching engines and landing gear to fuel tank supporting structure (see diagram below) in
combination with excessively high take-off and landing speeds on overstressed tires is a perfect recipe for a
fiery disaster.

In the conventional aircraft, fuel is stored under the passengers in the center of the aircraft (this was the fuel
tank which exploded in TWA Flight #800). Some of the newer aircraft even store fuel in the horizontal tail fins.
In case of accident, passengers are surrounded by fuel - alongside and behind and below (when gravity and the
directional momentum of the aircraft are taken into account, this leads to most passengers being encircled by
burning fuel. "Moving the landing gear inboard and strengthening the fuselage to absorb the shock of landing
would eliminate applying stress to the fuel tank supporting
structure.”

“This revision of the commonplace has been accomplished in the Burnelli "lifting wing" design. Another
feature of this latter type aircraft is the shifting of fuel tanks so that they are not in direct line with the power
plants and their exhaust outlets."

GEORGE H. TRYON, III, National Fire Protection Association Secretary, NFPA Quarterly (Vol 40, No. 4) April 1947, page 264

33
Crashes CAN Be Harmless - by George Daniels
June 1941

Mechanix Illustrated, (Pages 56,57,58,59,140,141)

“Airplane fatalities must be reduced. Moreover they can be reduced! There is absolutely no sensible reason why
all efforts toward this end should be confined solely to preventing the crashes! It is obvious that accidents are
still happening. The job now is to make planes withstand them better. It can be done!

Too many people are killed in airplane crashes. It's about time to realize that pilots aren't supermen. Accidents
continue to happen and there's no sense in claiming they can be entirely prevented. The only intelligent thing to
do is to build the planes to withstand as violent a smashup as possible.

Six years ago Lou Reichers was flying a big twin engine, fuselage-lift transport invented by V.J. Burnelli, when
the ailerons came off over Newark Airport. There wasn't anything wrong with the design of the plane; it was
just one of the things that sometimes happens to a test ship. A handful of bolts had been left out of the control
hinge brackets during the assembly job. The result was a crash at 2 miles a minute. The big ship hit the ground
so hard that one of the engines landed about 200 yards away.

It was the thirteenth of January when it happened, and the ground was frozen as hard as a brick, but the wreck
plowed a ditch big enough to hide a whale in. Every aviation engineer on the face of the earth should have
wanted to know how the ship's cabin managed to come through that crash in perfect condition.

As a matter of fact, Reichers and the engineer who rode with him, John Murray, walked out of the ship for a
smoke as soon as it stopped plowing up the earth. They might as well have smoked inside because the gas tanks
hadn't even sprung a leak.

That ship was an unusual design. It had a broad,

flat fuselage shaped like a wing. Inside there
were seats for 16 people. Both engines were
located in the nose of that single body, with the
pilots compartment behind them. The total
weight of the thing was a little over eight tons--
with about 1,500 horse-power to pull it. The lines
were pretty clean, even by today's standards,
giving a top speed of 250.

The cross sectional dimensions of the fuselage

were so generous that the amazing strength was
almost easy to attain. Extruded dural beams and
channels gave the cabin the toughness of a young
railroad bridge. The position of the engines in the
nose eliminated the likelihood of their smashing
anything but themselves when the plane hit head first. And that's about all they did smash--the windshields right
behind them didn't even crack when the ship crashed. The fact that Reichers and Murray weren't killed is easy
to understand when you see a picture of the pilot's compartment and passenger cabin. The worst effect
noticeable is the mud on the windows. When the cabin of a plane stays in one piece the passengers stand a
chance in any crash….”

34
The Burnelli Conspiracy

The Address By: Chalmers H. Goodlin on the occasion of his induction into the Niagara Frontier Aviation Hall
of Fame May 15, 1987

The Vincent Justus Burnelli story started in Temple, Texas, in 1895. For the sake of brevity, I will pick it up in
1919, when young Vincent designed and built America's first great airliner, the 26-passenger Lawson. This
airliner was unique in its day and even flew a large number of congressmen around Washington in
demonstration flights. But Burnelli considered it to be merely a streetcar with wings. Consequently, he designed
and built the world's first lifting body in 1921, an airplane with an airfoil fuselage, the RB-1, which could carry
32 passengers . In 1924, he built the RB-2 which, at that time, was the world's largest airfreighter. It could carry
two automobiles and served as an Essex flying showroom for a time. The elevators and rudders were attached to
the fuselage trailing edge, but it was learned that this arrangement did not provide adequate longitudinal and
directional control. Therefore, when Burnelli built his next airplane, the CB-16 , in 1927 America's first multi-
engined plush executive airplane with retractable landing gear he added twin booms to obviate the stability
deficiencies of his first two lifting body airplanes. This airplane, incidentally, was the first twin engine airplane
that could offer single engine capability at design gross weight.

Burnelli next built the amazing GX- 3 for the Guggenheim Safety Contest in 1929, in which he produced the
first break-away leading edge in combination with high-lift trailing edge flaps. This feature is now quite
common on most jet transport aircraft. Burnelli told me how the F.A.A. then called the C.A.A. ordered him to
bolt the leading edges shut, as they were a hazard to safe flying.
35
The C.A.A. also remonstrated with Burnelli for his use of the retractable landing gear in the CB-16, citing it as
being not only a hazard, but also a serious maintenance problem. Obligingly, Burnelli returned to fixed gear in
his UB-20 in 1930. This was the first aircraft in the world to employ the use of flat metal, stressed skin
construction.

About this time, the potential of commercial aviation was beginning to penetrate conservative thought, so
Burnelli, with his partner, Ingliss Uppercue of New York Cadillac note, decided to build the UB-14 in
competition with the Douglas DC-2. The UB-14 turned out to be a very impressive airplane, and, in spite of the
deep economic depression, it attracted serious attention in the U.S. and abroad. Unfortunately, at that time,
Uppercue suffered disastrous financial losses and was unable to fund the original marketing and production
program. Despite this setback, Burnelli was able to sell an executive version to his old friend, P.W. Chapman,
but disaster struck on the delivery flight. In the excitement, the maintenance crew forgot to attach the aileron
hinge bolts. (Description of previously described crash by Louis T. Reichers Test Pilot) Fortunately, Burnelli
recovered from the disaster and, before long, had the UB-14B flying with two newer P&W 750HP Hornet
Engines. This aircraft had an empty weight of 9,250 lbs. and a gross weight of 21,500 lbs., with a cruising speed
of over 200 MPH.

Burnelli was probably the hottest item in American aviation then. I remember well his frequent appearances in
the press, and I made models of his planes as a boy. Though I did not recognize their importance at the time,
they were significantly less complicated to build than the conventional designs of the day. The extraordinary
performance of theUB-14Bcaught the eye of the English, and Burnelli negotiated a license agreement with them
to produce British-built variations of the aircraft. This enabled him to obtain a RFC loan of $250,000 to expand
his Keyport, New Jersey factory. Burnelli entered fighter and fighter/bomber variations of this design in Army
Air Corps competitions in 1939 and won three of them, hands down, based upon exciting NACA wind tunnel
tests and Wright Field's enthusiastic recognition of his design superiority. In 1939, General "Hap" Arnold
advised the Secretary of War that

"In my opinion, it is essential, in the interest of national defense, that this Burnelli procurement be authorized"

Shortly after, Burnelli was invited to the White House to witness President Roosevelt's signing of a directive for
many Burnelli airplanes to be built for the Army. Unfortunately, fate again intervened. When Roosevelt learned
that Burnelli's financial backer was Sun Oil Company's Arthur Pew, a staunch Republican foe, Burnelli's team
was escorted from the Oval Office into orchestrated oblivion. No contracts emerged, and even worse, a secret
Army report was issued denigrating the Burnelli concept.

Although Burnelli managed to sign a license agreement with the Canadians to build a larger Burnelli design, the
most odious pressures were brought to bear. His RFC loan was recalled, for no apparent reason, and he had to
sell his tooling and equipment in an attempt to survive. He could not pay his loyal workers and was forced to
see them being swept up by his competitors. Arthur Pew told him there was no hope as long as Roosevelt was in
power and put Burnelli on the payroll of a Pew-controlled shipping company as a consultant to await FDR's fall.
War broke out, however, and the accent was placed on aircraft production--any aircraft, as long as it was not a
Burnelli! As a result, this great genius of American Aircraft design was forced to vegetate during the years
when his designs could have saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars!!!

In 1943, General "Hap" Arnold was concerned by the political stifling of the Burnelli design and took the
logical approach that American pilots were being forced into inferior aircraft. Therefore, he requested the highly
regarded Colonel Harold Hartney of World War I, 94th ("Hat In Ring") Aero Squadron fame, to conduct a
complete survey of the Burnelli situation for insertion into the Pentagon files. Colonel Hartney enlisted the aid
of the great Dr. Max Munk, who did an in-depth comparison of the Burnelli design with the one considered as
"conventional". On safety, he concluded:
36
 "The superior performance of the Burnelli plane is not, in any way, obtained by sacrificing a low landing
speed. On the contrary, the Burnelli plane has a lower wing loading and, in consequence, will land much slower
than the conventional plane. It is doubtful whether the high landing speed of the conventional plane makes it
suitable for commercial operations."

Hartney himself wrote Arnold:

"Regarding safety, wing loading has been going up at such a dangerous rate of late that an effort of some kind
must be made to stop it. With increased wing loading, the impact in a crash from greater speeds mounts up so
rapidly that the chances of passengers surviving diminishes about as the square of the increased pounds per
square foot loading, something most distressing which few seem to appreciate. I recommend that you direct a
memorandum to the joint war production committee suggesting that planes of the Burnelli type be put on the
integrated program of requirements. In making these recommendations I submit you will, by so doing, be
making an attempt to secure safer airplanes and obtain less expensive airplanes."

Burnelli's hopes that when Roosevelt died all would be forgotten, and his lifting body genius would be widely
recognized, proved to be unjustified. The military/industrial/political complex, firmly entrenched during the
war, sank its roots deeper, and the conventional manufacturers, utilizing taxpayer-financed design criteria,
imposed higher and higher take-off and landing speeds on the traveling public. In early 1948, ALPA President
David Behnke told congress that:

"The current trend to higher wing loadings constitutes a hazard to safe flying. The airlines are looking to Rube
Goldberg devices and excessive braking action in an effort to bridge the gap between the inadequacy of our
airports and the hot performance characteristics of the planes."

In spite of professional testimony like this, the manufacturers locked into an inferior design criterion and,
concerned over infringement of the Burnelli patents, kept increasing wing loadings and consequent take-off and
landing speeds until they achieved V- 2 speeds over 175 knots in the DC-10 and Boeing 747. Simultaneously,
with no restraint from the F.A.A. or the Flight Safety Foundation, they commenced installing fuel tanks
underneath the passenger seats in the fuselage. All this, in spite of the fact that they were notified by the tire
manufacturers that tire technology was already stretched.

Returning to the immediate post-war period, I met Vincent

Burnelli in 1949 with some awe, and I found him to be one of the
most agreeable persons imaginable. Not only did his genius
sparkle, his unassuming manner disguised a highly cultured
individual whose knowledge of the arts never ceased to amaze me.
He was generous to a fault. When I asked him why he did not sue
his competitors for using his patents and proprietary rights,
Burnelli replied: "I never took out patents to sue people. My sole
reason for doing so was to make certain that I could build my
airplanes without buying design rights from others." Although all
the conventional manufacturers infringed upon Burnelli's rights,
he never sued any of them.

Shortly after meeting Burnelli, I took an active interest in his

company and became a shareholder. It was always with great
pleasure that I visited Vince's office on Fifth Avenue, just opposite
the New York Library. I met there some of the greatest names in aviation: Bert Acosta, Clyde Pangborn,
Clarence Chamberlin, Sir Hubert Wilkins, Lowell Thomas, Bill Lear, Sr., Dr. Alexander Klemin, Jean Roche
37
and an extraordinary number of our top wartime military people. Can you believe it; four ex-Wright Field
Commanding Generals bought stock in the Burnelli Company after the war. They were: Generals Ralph Royce,
Carl Spaatz, W.H. Frank and Hugh Knerr. It was their shared opinion that economy and safety would force the
military and the airlines to buy Burnelli-type airplanes. It is hardly surprising that these fine gentlemen and real
patriots were shocked when their requests for impartial evaluation of the Burnelli Design were rebuffed in a
cavalier manner by the Pentagon.

The war's end also brought out of limbo Canadian Production of the commercial CBY-3 that had been halted by
refusal of the War Production Board to permit acquisition of the required materials. This Burnelli prototype was
certificated in early 1947 by the Canadian Department of Transport. Burnelli had the CBY-3 flight tested at
Wright Field by the army, in hopes of getting a contract, but the contract was awarded to De Havilland for the
AC-1A. Here was a clear-cut case of the discrimination that has been perpetuated for decades. Both aircraft
were produced and licensed in Canada with identical power plants and at identical gross weights. Army flight
test reports still available disclosed that the Burnelli provided almost double the volume, almost double the floor
area and almost double the payload without sacrifice of cruise speed. Also, the Army reports stated that the
Burnelli design lent itself to cheaper construction costs. This was quantified by Republic Aviation's production
engineer, Vincent Carisi, who stated that Burnelli airframe designs would cost approximately half of
conventional counterparts. Add the savings of fuel cost, unnecessary runway construction, maintenance and air
crash fatality reduction, and we are probably talking of a total figure over 45 years that can be expressed in
hundreds of billions of dollars.

The ill-fortune that had dogged Burnelli through the years was never more evident than in his experience with
the CBY-3. Not only was he excluded from an Army contract, despite the fact that his design was superior, but
he was also unable to market the airplane commercially due to the overwhelming number of military surplus
aircraft at that specific time. Compared with newly produced comparable airplanes, the CBY-3 was a bargain,
but there was no way it could compete with C-46 and C-47 models being sold by the War Assets
Administration for $5,000 a piece!

About this time, my enthusiasm for the obvious soundness of the Burnelli Design escalated when Vince
Burnelli gave me the CBY-3 to evaluate for East African Airways in 1951. Its rugged, compact fuselage of
enormous volume gave one the feeling of riding in an armored car, and the flight characteristics were a joy.
Engine out asymmetrical thrust problems were virtually nil, and stability was near perfect in all axes. The nose
pitched straight forward in a stall, but as soon as the control column was released, the airplane was flying again.
On a 95-degree day in Miami, with 9,000 lbs. overload, the airplane was off the ground in 1,400 ft., climbing
out at a fantastic angle. With a similar payload, the C-46 would need a ground run of about 3,000 ft. overall.

After flying the Burnelli plane, I embarked on a very stressful campaign to get to the bottom of the obvious
problem. I assembled every flight test report on Burnelli Planes, the Wind Tunnel Reports from New York
University and NACA, plus all available Wright Field Reports. Curiously, they were all positive for the Burnelli
Design. In 1955, I learned that virtually all the Pentagon letters of Burnelli condemnation were quoted from a
1941 proceedings of a board of review. I demanded a copy of this report from the Pentagon but was promptly
told that it was "classified." It took me six years to obtain an incomplete copy of the report through my
Pennsylvania congressman. The report remained classified until the Freedom of Information Act came into
effect. The subject report was astonishing. It bore the signature of General Benny Meyers, who was later jailed
for aircraft procurement fraud. The report's evil intent was established by its concluding recommendations,
which I now read:

"The (Evaluation) Committee recommends that the Air Corps inform the Central Aircraft Corporation and V. J.
Burnelli Airplanes, Inc., and any other concern which may later possibly become interested in the Burnelli
"Lifting Fuselage, " that this design is of no interest to the Air Corps, and that for this reason, no further
38
correspondence, consultations or reviewing of data embodying this design will ever again be considered by the
Air Corps or the Materiel Division."

This paragraph from the spiteful 1941 report established the Pentagon Burnelli Policy that has been maintained
to the present date. The dishonest and derogatory remarks from this report have been circulated throughout the
aviation world and financial circles in such a manner as to make it impossible for the Burnelli Company to
attract funds in the normal, capitalistic manner. Indeed, the S.E.C. issued a stop order against the Burnelli
Company in 1959, which quoted the untrue technical remarks from the fraudulent 1941 report. I ask you: if
there was a fault in the Burnelli Design, what was the justification for the report being "Classified"?

In 1961, I managed to get an appointment with Harold Brown, then Director of Defense Research and
Engineering. During the meeting, I pointed out to him the fraudulent nature of the 1941 report and just how
important the Burnelli Lifting Body Design could be for our defense posture. I found Mr. Brown to be a
pompous, arrogant ass, and I was not surprised at him telling me that the D.O.D. stood by the 1941 report, and,
"if Burnelli did not like it, the Burnelli Company could attempt to sue the government." Brown is the guy, you
will remember, who nurtured the ridiculously incapable F-111 and the fabulously expensive C-5A airplanes into
the Air Force inventory.

Despite Brown's rebuff, we soldiered on. I think we had a glimmer of hope of getting the scandal onto the
agenda of the House of Representatives in 1963, when I caught Infectious Hepatitis in Greece. The attack was
almost terminal, and I was still recovering when dear Vince Burnelli suffered a fatal stroke in 1964. Those were
depressing days, indeed, and, for numerous reasons, we were forced to suspend our campaign. My illness had
not only debilitated me, but my finances as well, and I had to get out and market some used airplanes again. My
constant stream of correspondence with the Pentagon did not produce any meaningful results.

About 1970, I commenced getting rumors that the retired president of General Motors, Ed Cole, had started a
company to develop a family of large airplanes for the purpose of delivering cars, parts and general cargo
worldwide at vastly reduced rates. I then heard that T. A. Wilson, present Chairman of Boeing, had learned of
the rather extraordinary wind tunnel results from models, tested at Michigan University. He flew to Detroit, met
Ed Cole, and a deal was struck whereby Boeing would build the airplanes under a joint venture with Cole's
Company, called International Husky.

Then, some publicity pictures of the aircraft, now called the Boeing 754, began appearing in the Aviation Press.
It was not surprising to me to see that the Boeing 754 was a direct steal from existing Burnelli patents. Shortly
thereafter, I received a call in my London home from a European Airline President, who was in Seattle picking
up a new B-727. He said that Boeing's Vice President Sales, Clarence Wilde, had introduced him to Ed Cole.
The two of them took him to a hangar to see the airplane of the future which, they advised; he should sign up
for right away! My friend took one look at the mock-up and exclaimed: "Good God, it's a Burnelli!" "What
about Burnelli and Slick Goodlin?" Wilde and Cole replied: "Oh, they are being taken care of." What was meant
by that is yet to be determined.

Anyway, I wrote to Ed Cole and Clarence Wilde saying we were delighted that they had discovered Burnelli's
brilliance and that Burnelli would be glad to negotiate a normal license arrangement. About six weeks later, I
got a letter from Boeing, stating that, while they had investigated the Burnelli Design, they had decided not to
proceed with the project. The fact that Boeing decided to cancel the project, after spending some millions on it,
became even more astonishing when a disgruntled engineer sent me a couple of pages out of the Boeing 754
manual which disclosed the enormity of Burnelli superiority. With similar power, the twin engine Burnelli type
B-754 had a maximum containerized payload of 160,000 lbs., while the B-767 could only carry less than half,
72,770 lbs., non containerized. In short, the Burnelli type could carry more than double the payload and fly it
1,200 nautical miles further than the B- 767!
39
Can you imagine precisely what this could mean to the air transport industry? We are talking about a
transportation revolution of enormous proportions. Undreamed of expansion and a real enhancement of aircraft
safety.

The establishment manufacturers simply keep churning out upgraded variations of the same old airframes from
the same old tooling, larger power plants and a few bits of new gadgetry. New aircraft for sale now show hardly
any advantages to airlines. Take Boeing, for example: the Boeing 707 had a gross weight capability of 4.62 lbs .
per pound of take-off thrust, but there has been constant decline ever since with the Boeing 757 capability being
reduced to 2.99 lbs. per pound of thrust. Aircraft cruise speed is the same, so this is not just retrogression, it is
clear-cut decadence!

I read now from a letter, signed by a recently retired vice president of a major manufacturer.

"I do not believe that enough attention has been paid to accident avoidance during the detailed design phase on
modern day aircraft development. The engineering departments of the manufacturers do not have separate
identifiable staff groups dedicated solely to continuous audit and review of each step of the design process to
ensure that each and every design decision takes accident avoidance and survivability into full consideration. I
believe that many accidents that have occurred during the past few years would have never happened, had such
surveillance been exercised. I do believe that the Burnelli Design deserves a lot more consideration than it has
received, and I hope it gets it."

We have mentioned, from time to time, the inherent safety of the Burnelli Design.

This illustration shows why. Please note the

placement of fuel, engines and landing gear on
the Standard Jet Transport and then on the
Burnelli. Anyone with a modicum of
intelligence knows that the practice of hanging
engines and landing gear on fuel tank
supporting structure in combination with
outrageously high take-off and landing speeds
is a recipe for disaster. Please note that with
each design improvement, involving increased
cruise speed and payload, the Burnelli still
remains essentially a STOL- type aircraft with
the crew and passengers protected by a solid
cocoon.

I do not think that the concerted suppression of Burnelli by the manufacturers, the D.O.D., NASA and the
F.A.A., since world War II, represents acts of coincidence, particularly when every NACA/NASA Wind Tunnel
Test Report, every Wright Field Report and every Flight Test Report as well as the Boeing 754 figures confirms
remarkable Burnelli superiority. The only answer I have been able to come up with is that we taxpayers are
being bilked by the most sophisticated totalitarian manipulators the world has ever seen. They care nothing for
principle, ethics or integrity . . . they care nothing for the number of people unnecessarily killed . . . they care
nothing for our constitution or preserving it. They will even jockey us into war, if it means preserving their
power and greed. I say, the free-enterprise system is great, but it cannot function if we taxpayers do not take a
personal interest in our country's business and stop those Washington Plutocrats from merely acting as flunkies
for the entrenched special interests.

40
It is a hell of a note when a good guy, like Fitzgerald, gets fired from the Defense Department for blowing the
whistle on the C-5A scandal. The measure of just how sick our government is can be seen from the fact that,
after being conned into buying a junker of an airplane with an unprecedented 3,000-hour wing life which
required a two-billion-dollar fix, we ended up buying another fifty of them!!! The current sequel is the B-1
Bomber, a total disaster, and the administration is calling for more billions to try and make it operational. How
can any country survive, if contractors deliver sub-standard products and get rewarded with new contracts to
make the failed product work? It is an insanity for which all of us taxpayers are paying through the nose. It has
got to stop. No nation can afford such plundering and national irresponsibility. Is it any wonder that we have
such an enormous Pentagon budget and monumental national debt?

Why, then, does a stone wall still exist when the Burnelli Design is mentioned within the aviation community?
Can a political feud between Roosevelt and Pew in the thirties, which generated the dishonest and inaccurate
Army Air Corps analysis, continue to block the Burnelli in the eighties? Unfortunately, yes! The beneficiaries
of that evil 1941 act were Burnelli's competitors, who quickly became the pillars of the military/industrial
complex.

As many of you might recognize, Ike was right. President Eisenhower said the following in his farewell address
on January 17, 1961:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought
or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for or the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties and democratic
processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the
proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense, with our peaceful methods and goals,
so that peace, security and liberty may prosper together."

We are missing the "proper meshing" of which Ike spoke so eloquently. The military/industrial complex has
acquired power. With power comes arrogance, such as Boeing demonstrated when it "assumed" that it could
steal and then incorporate the Burnelli Design as its own with the Boeing 754.

Arrogance comes to mind when we learn that, just last year, a superior court jury ruled that McDonnell Douglas
had practiced fraud and deceit by claiming that the DC-10 fuel tanks would not rupture if the landing gear was
torn off. Continental Airlines was awarded 32 million dollars when, in an accident, the landing gear of one of
their DC-10's ruptured fuel tanks, the aircraft caught fire and caused fatalities. It is my understanding that
McDonnell Douglas has appealed and requested that the judge seal the testimony to make it unavailable for
public consumption. This lack of consideration for the safety of paying passengers is simply a restatement of the
aircraft manufacturing industry's lack of morality.

Is it not another example of arrogant power?

In 1921, Vincent Burnelli was multi-years ahead of his time

with his lifting body design, a fundamental design that is still
ahead today in this highly competitive world of ours, and after
many years of exciting technological breakthroughs. Vince's
last design, completed before his death in 1964, was this
Burnelli Model GB-888, a supersonic suborbital vehicle of
the type being talked about by President Reagan and others
for a future two-hour non- stop flight from New York to
Tokyo. Again, Burnelli was years ahead of his time with a

41
vehicle that is better and more efficient than any on the horizon today but still using his basic 1921 design
concept.

Is it not time that we, as citizens of these United States, stand up, call our representatives to account and make
the military/industrial complex recognize that its function is to protect us, not destroy us or rule us? In my
opinion, the Burnelli Conspiracy (for that is exactly what it has been) offers a great and timely opportunity for
our country's extreme weaknesses to be targeted and exposed. When that occurs, we will be able to get safer and
more economical airplanes into the air, and, simultaneously, obtain long overdue accolades for America's most
important aircraft designer, that brilliant Texan, Vincent Justus Burnelli. Thank you very much. END OF
SPEECH

Burnelli Aircraft

[The Sunday Telegraph Magazine, 2002]

ON FEBRUARY 16th 1998, an Airbus A300-600R operated by China Airlines came in to land at Taiwan's
Chiang Kai-shek International Airport in heavy fog. The altitude of the approach was dangerously high. Air
traffic control instructed the pilot to abort his landing, go around and try again. The aeroplane rose far too
steeply, at an angle of 42 degrees, stalled, and fell. It hit the ground 200 feet to the left of the runway, at a speed
of 234 miles per hour, ploughed across the central reservation of the adjacent highway and skidded into a built-
up area, where it smashed through homes and factories, then exploded into a vast fireball. Only the tail
remained identifiable as part of an airliner. All 196 passengers and crew were pulverized or immolated. Seven
victims on the ground brought the death toll to 203.

On January 13 1935, a Burnelli UB-14 setting out on a demonstration flight, and watched by public, press,
sundry celebrities and the aeroplane's designer, Vincent Justus Burnelli, crashed at Newark Airport, New Jersey.
The aerilons, which permit an aeroplane to bank and turn, dropped off the wings. At an altitude of 200 feet and
a speed of 195 miles per hour, the four-ton plane plunged to earth. It landed on its right wing-tip and cart
wheeled with such force that it gouged a deep trench in the frozen ground, while one of the two engines ripped
from the nose of the craft came to rest 600 feet away. The empty passenger cabin remained intact, its seats fixed
in position. There was no fire. The crew walked out of the wreckage and lit up cigarettes.

What do these two accidents, separated by 63 years, have in common? Very little, on the face of it. One craft
was a large commercial jet, the other a 16-passenger propeller plane, diminutive by today's standards. One
incident ended in tragedy, the other in a miraculous escape. One factor alone unites them. They were caused by
human error. In Taiwan, the captain mistakenly believed his craft to be on autopilot; for eleven crucial seconds,
no-one and nothing was in control. In Newark, the plane's mechanics had failed to tighten a crucial set of bolts.
Each, once the error occurred, was in the hands of fate.

Chalmers H Goodlin would fundamentally disagree. Goodlin is a former test pilot, a lifelong aviation
professional and the current chief executive of the Burnelli Company. He would argue that, if one accepts the
inevitability of human error, the issue becomes not whether an aircraft will crash, but will happen when it does.
At this point, the cause of the crash - a confused pilot, a negligent mechanic, a structural or systems failure -
becomes irrelevant. Goodlin believes that the UB-14 crew survived by design - Burnelli's design. And that the
travelers aboard the China Airlines Airbus died by design - the design of their aeroplane, and of every passenger
aeroplane in use today.

In 1939, the chief of the US Army Air Corps, General Henry “Hap” Arnold, was so impressed with the UB-14's
potential that he reported to the Secretary of War: “The basic principle of the lifting fuselage as developed by V.
J. Burnelli has distinct advantages over the „streamlined fuselage‟. From wind tunnel tests already conducted by
42
the NACA [National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, forerunner of NASA] and NYU [New York
University] the performance is exceptionally good in every phase. The design embodies extremely good factors
of safety - considerably higher than the streamlined fuselage type. In my opinion,” he concluded, “it is essential,
in the interest of the national defense, that this procurement be authorized.”

Dr. Edmund Cantilli, the retired Professor of Transportation Safety & Engineering at New York Polytechnic,
believes that Burnelli's design is as valuable today as it was in 1939. “Aircraft manufacturers have concentrated
on airworthiness,” Cantilli says, “and ignored crashworthiness. Far too many people die in plane crashes
because they have not been given a reasonable chance of surviving. The use of Burnelli airliners,” he asserts,
“would reduce air crash fatalities by 85 per cent.”

This is an astonishing figure. Instinctively, one feels it cannot be correct. If it were, we would all be flying in
these amazing aircraft. And we aren't.

But if we skirt this cart-before-horse reasoning, we could instead ask the question, “Why not? Why aren't
Burnelli aircraft the universal standard?” And in answering it, there is an extraordinary saga to be uncovered.
The tale of Burnelli ranges from the earliest fairground stunt pilots to NASA and the Pentagon. It takes in
allegations of subterfuge, corruption and malice reaching the highest level of American politics.

Most tales of suppressed technology can be easily dismissed, involving as they do such giddy hallucinations as
nuclear fusion, or an engine which runs for 17 hours on half a can of Fanta. In this case, the technology is
demonstrably real, and its history is backed up by a remarkable body of evidence. Goodlin calls the stifling of
Burnelli, “The biggest story in the history of aviation, and the greatest scientific fraud of the twentieth century.”
That's quite a claim. But then, it's quite a story.

VINCENT Burnelli was 24 years old when he created one the world's earliest airliners, the Lawson C-2. It was
1919. He devised this 26-passenger beast in the employ of entrepreneur Alfred W Lawson. In any milieu other
than the nascent aircraft industry, Lawson - a onetime baseball player who funded his operation by selling stock
to war widows and orphans - would have been a maverick. But sixteen years after the Wright Brothers' debut
flight at Kitty Hawk, the aeroplane business was a swashbuckling free-for all, populated by types who tended to
be a combination of huckster, visionary and barnstormer. Like the modern, cyber-illiterate opportunists who
waded full-tilt into the internet market, they were more concerned with the main chance than with the
technology behind it. The cultured and mild-mannered Burnelli, dedicated to his craft, was already a man out of
place.

A native of Temple, Texas, the son of an Italian father and a Canadian mother, Burnelli was a devotee of
aviation. At 15, he was a champion model airplane builder and hang-glider. He independently built and flew his
first plane at 21, with his friend John Carisi, and had already spent three years as chief engineer of the
Continental Aircraft Company when he was retained by Lawson for the C-2 project.

Lawson hired World War I RAF ace Charlie Cox to fly the C-2, only for Burnelli to discover, halfway through
the inaugural itinerary, that their pilot was a different Charlie Cox, a ballroom dancer with a total of eight hours
experience in the air. Despite this, and a crash-landing smack in front of the nation's news cameras, the airliner
went on to become a commercial success, a trailblazer in passenger air travel. Burnelli, however, referred to it
as “a streetcar with wings”. He knew what he was talking about, having modeled the cabin on a tram. It was
remarkable that he got the thing to fly at all.

He swiftly came up with a new idea; a masterstroke which would dictate the form of every aircraft he designed
thereafter. This was the “lifting body”, a fuselage in an airfoil shape, like a wing, wide and rectangular in frontal
cross-section. His first attempts, the RB-1 (1921) and RB-2 (1924) biplanes, were serviceable but unwieldy. In
43
1927, he got it right with the CB-16 monoplane, a luxurious twin-engine executive airliner. It was the first
multi-engine plane capable of flying on just one motor. Burnelli also pioneered such commonplaces as
retractable landing gear, wing flaps and flat metal “stressed-skin” construction in place of heavy,
unaerodynamic corrugated metal. There the resemblance to modern commercial aeroplanes ends. Burnelli's
planes looked like nothing on today's civil airfields; they were flat and broad, and tended to have a double tail
mounted on a twin boom at the rear, like that of a catamaran.

They were also profoundly different, Dr Edmund Cantilli believes, in terms of safety - and remain so. He cites
the flaws of the familiar “streamlined fuselage” aeroplane - a cylinder with wings - in which we all travel, and
which has changed only in minor details over the last few decades. In event of a serious accident - most of
which occur near take off or landing - the cabin almost invariably breaks up and the seats come adrift, strewing
their human cargo like chaff. Because engines and landing gear are usually mounted beneath the wings, where
the fuel is stored, a rupture in the tanks will pour this fuel onto the engines and the overheated tyres, ensuring
that explosive fire claims the few potential survivors.

Cantilli claims three major safety advantages for the Burnelli design. They have greater lift, meaning that they
can remain airborne at lower speeds than conventional aircraft. This allows them to take off and land relatively
slowly, putting less pressure on the tyres and minimizing any crash impact. Thanks to its shape and
construction, the fuselage is more robust, tending to stay in one piece on crash impact. The seats are directly
attached to the main structure of the craft, and more likely to stay put. The engines are mounted at the front of
the broad fuselage and the landing gear underneath it, away from the fuel in the wings, making fire much less
probable.

Burnelli's advances were hugely acclaimed at the time. “In the thirties,” says Chalmers Goodlin, “when I was a
teenager, Burnelli was the biggest name in aviation magazines and even in the newspapers. His aeroplanes were
acclaimed by universities. So it was rather amazing. When the war came along, why, bang! It was as if he was
dead. The military didn't buy any of his aeroplanes.”

As war loomed, Burnelli had seemed to be unstoppable. He had the right idea at the right time. Come 1941, he
found himself sitting in the White House at the invitation of President Franklin D Roosevelt. By Burnelli's own
account, Roosevelt told him: “Burnelli, we understand you have the best aeroplane of the lot, and we're going to
build a lot of them. So I guess you're going to need some money.” Burnelli courteously replied that this
wouldn't be necessary: “Mr. Arthur Pew of the Sun Oil Company is prepared to put up whatever we need.”

Clearly, Burnelli's technical gifts were inversely proportional to his political nous. Arthur Pew was the backer
not only of Burnelli, but of Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt's Republican opponent in the previous year's bitter
presidential election. Roosevelt threw his pen across the room and Burnelli out of the White House.

Within weeks, a new Army Air Corps report had been prepared, in complete contradiction to General Arnold's.
It rubbished Burnelli and resolved, with startling and didactic finality, that, “This design is of no interest to the
Air Corps and that for this reason, no further correspondence, consultations, or reviewing of data embodying
this design will ever again be considered by the Air Corps or the Materiel Division.”

Whether or not this was done at Roosevelt's behest goes to the heart of the matter. And certainly, it is hard to
see it as a coincidence that the widely feted Burnelli should so abruptly be execrated and shunned. For Vincent
Burnelli and his company, the report triggered a frustrating and irreversible decline, and a struggle which would
end neither with Roosevelt's death in 1944, nor with Burnelli's twenty years after. The campaign, now more of a
guerilla war, has continued to this day, thanks only to Chalmers Goodlin.

44
CHALMERS H Goodlin is 78 years old, and few of those 78 years have been uneventful. His house in Miami is
testimony to it. From the outside, it looks like a blandly Hispanic stucco bungalow typical of the genteel Coral
Gables neighbourhood. Indoors, it could be a baronial hall transplanted in its entirety from the shires. Huge
beams of authentic English oak buttress rooms crammed with suits of plate armour, one of which straddles a
hollow, iron-clad horse. A stag's head stares down glassily from the lintel. Hanging from the dining room wall
is an original Tintoretto. Flying memorabilia are everywhere: photographs, models, certificates, testimonials. It
is the home of an Anglophile aviator and adventurer, who still wears the W-shaped moustache cultivated by The
Few and visible in a dozen dashing snapshots of the test pilot and aircraft trader in his younger days.

As a teenage farm boy, Goodlin took to dallying at the grass airfield of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, cadging rides
and then taking flying lessons. “Flying was a ramshackle business. I was drawn to it by all the strange
characters who used to hang around there.” Inspired by the Battle Of Britain, Goodlin headed north at 18 to
enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Posted to England, and repeatedly thwarted in his desire to fly combat,
he found himself training Spitfire pilots in Shropshire, alongside a compatriot by the marvellous name of Bob
Constant.

After America entered the Second World War, frustration took the pair to the US Navy. As Goodlin recalls it, in
a New World drawl salted with old-fangled phrasings, “They promised us we'd go to the Pacific on land based
Corsair squadrons. But instead, why, they put us in a school in Jacksonville with doctors and lawyers to learn
naval history and how to wave flags and that sort of thing. So we were rather teed off about that.”

Bob Constant had a sister, and Bob Constant's sister had an influential job: executive secretary to the US Chief
of Staff, General George C Marshall. The most senior soldier in the land was not above a little inter-service
snobbery. “She told him about how unhappy we were in the navy. And he said, „Well, I can understand that. It's
not a very nice military organization. They've got testing experience, let's see if we can't arrange for them to go
work for one of the aeroplane companies.‟ So we resigned from the navy and went to work for Bell.”

Thus, in 1946, “Slick” Goodlin became the first pilot to make rocket-powered flights in the legendary Bell X-1,
the plane which broke the sound barrier. “I flew it 26 times. I did have a couple of high-risk situations where
there was a fire in the ass-end, and all I could do was hope that I could get on the ground before anything started
coming apart. But it was like nothing I had flown before. Amazing acceleration. It felt like I was hit in the back
with a big shovel.”

Goodlin had a handshake deal on his fee for this hazardous task. “I think the Air Force said, well, this is
ridiculous, here's a civilian test pilot getting all of this publicity - and what's worse he's ex-Navy. This should be
done by a US Air Force pilot. And Bell simply lacked the integrity to do right by me. They tried to get off
without paying me what they were supposed to pay. Bob Stanley, the VP of engineering, said „Don't you want
to fly the X-2?‟ I said, „Bob, if your word's no good on the X-1, it's no good on the X-2.‟ Goodlin quit, and the
Air Force's Chuck Yeager went on to pilot the X-1 through the sound barrier and into history.

Goodlin spent the next few years as a jobbing pilot, although the jobs were hardly mundane. A spell as Chief
Test Pilot for the Israeli Air Force finally saw him in combat during that nation's war of independence. Next, he
worked for a carrier set up to airlift Jewish refugees from Germany and Aden to Israel. He would fly any
aeroplane anywhere, which was how, in 1949, he came to be “deadheading in New York for a couple of days.
One of the pilots said, „Let's go down and see Vince Burnelli, he's got an office here on Fifth Avenue.‟ Now, I
had never met him before, but of course I was extremely interested in why his aeroplanes hadn't been built.

“So I met him and he was a charming guy. He said, „I'd like you to fly my last aeroplane, if you would, and give
me your opinion on it.‟” This was the CBY-3, also known - with justification - as the “Loadmaster”. It was the
first Burnelli to make it off the drawing board since the late thirties, when British aircraft company Cunliffe-
45
Owen had licensed their own version of the UB-14, the Clyde Clipper. Used by General de Gaulle as his
personal transport throughout World War II, the Clipper is now remembered, if at all, as an aviation oddity to
rank with Howard Hughes's ill-fated wooden behemoth, the Spruce Goose.

Backed by the Canadian Car & Foundry Company, Burnelli designed the Loadmaster as a workhorse rival to
the highly-regarded DC-3, or Dakota. It offered more square feet of floor space, and greater load capacity per
unit of horsepower, than anything in its class. “I was stunned,” says Goodlin, “by the superior flight
characteristics of it. Load carrying, slow take-off and landing speed. I was just astonished that this technology
hadn't been used during the war. I got intrigued by it, and I bought some shares in the company.”

The CBY-3 turned out to be Vincent Burnelli's last throw of the dice, and he lost. For all its qualities, it could
not compete on price with the glut of cheap ex-military aircraft released onto the market after the war. Goodlin
himself would discover this when in 1950 he accepted Winston Churchill's old Dakota from a British airline
company in lieu of payment for his work as an operations manager. He sold it on, and made a tidy profit. “I
thought, gosh, this is nice business. So I went back to England and got two more. I just kept buying aeroplanes.”

Throughout the fifties, as Goodlin's aircraft trading business grew, so the Burnelli company dwindled. It now
consisted of little more than Burnelli himself - funded by Goodlin, designing ever-more ambitious aeroplanes he
could not find backers to build - and a clutch of respected but helpless supporters. Burnelli, as we have seen,
was neither a savvy businessman nor a political animal. Eventually, he sought assistance from a more vigorous
quarter. “By 1960,” says Goodlin, “why, Vince asked me to become president of the company, and see if I
couldn't straighten out the mess in Washington.

“The first thing I found out was that the Pentagon was sending out these letters to anyone who asked, quoting a
1941 report as the reason why they weren't interested in Burnelli.” Remarkably, nobody at Burnelli had ever
read the full report itself. “I asked for a copy from the Pentagon and they said it was classified - after twenty
years! Dan Flood, my congressman, demanded and obtained a copy from the Secretary of Defence, Robert
McNamara.”

The report bore the signature of one General Bennett E Meyers, whose Air Force career had since come to an
ignominious end when he was jailed for funneling procurement money to his own companies. But even with
Meyers long gone, the report still stood. “It was the most atrocious document,” seethes Goodlin, “that I have
ever seen. It was unbelievable that such a document could be issued by a government agency. It was obviously
fraudulent.”

The Burnelli cause cannot have been helped when its own champion in Congress, Dan Flood, was convicted of
soliciting bribes. Goodlin views this as a “sting operation' brought about to curb Flood's efforts on his behalf.
One Pennsylvania newspaper would memorialise Flood as “a thief of such extravagance that he took to wearing
a cape in his later years,” so perhaps we should be cautious in attributing his disgrace to such sinister motives.

But, by the time Vincent Burnelli died in 1964, Goodlin had understandably begun to see sinister motives
everywhere. He had come to believe that the “military-industrial complex”, or “MIC” for short, was conspiring
to keep down the Burnelli design. In his correspondence with any relevant agency or organization, Goodlin
found himself referred back to the 1941 report again and again. In 1959, the Securities and Exchange
Commission cited the report in a stop order issued against the company, preventing its shares from being traded.
Goodlin managed to keep the Burnelli Company solvent by bankrolling it himself, subsidising it with the
proceeds of his flourishing business in what he considered to be inferior aircraft. At the end of the sixties, the
company existed only on paper, its sole assets the designs and patents which Burnelli had left behind.

46
“We had four ex-commanding generals from Wright Field [then the official air corps test site] join Burnelli as
directors after the war,” Goodlin says. “But even with that kind of horsepower, the Burnelli Company couldn't
break through. And in 1960, when Jean Roche, who was chief of airplane design for the US air corps for 43
years, retired and came on board, we still couldn't get anywhere.

“These silly bastards who commissioned that report had made a political decision on a technical matter. They
figured, well, with all of the money that we have for research and development, we can come up with something
that will supersede the Burnelli technology. But they never did. They spent billions and billions on research and
development. But they could never match the Burnelli principle.”

In 1970, a friend in the Pentagon got in touch with Goodlin. “He told me, „The Burnelli matter is called the H-
bomb here. Nobody wants to be around when it goes off.‟” Nobody, that is, except Goodlin himself. But his
livelihood was calling him elsewhere. “I was spending half my time in England. I used London as a jumping off
place for doing business in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and India.” Burnelli or no, a move to London
seemed only practical. Goodlin bought an L shaped property in Chelsea; a house on Cheyne Walk, tied into a
cottage and carriage yard on adjacent Cheyne Row. His next door neighbour on Cheyne Walk was Mick Jagger.
“He would come through my place when he was trying to avoid the press, and I would let him out on Cheyne
Row.”

It was In London he met his second and current wife, Aila, a Finn who had moved there to work in fashion: “He
had just come back from a wedding - the Duke of Marlborough or someone like that - and I was introduced to
him. He was so handsome, so dynamic, I thought, oh my, this is God's gift to women. No, we have no children.
Burnelli,” she adds, revealingly, “is our baby.”

Goodlin tried to keep an eye on their baby from London, but it proved difficult. For over a decade, it seemed
ever more probable that the Burnelli Company would never see a revival. Come 1983, his Pentagon contact had
some more advice: “He said, „Listen, if you don't come back and fight this battle here, you're never going to win
it.‟ Being of Pennsylvania Deutsch stock and very stubborn, I decided I would do that. But I haven't won it yet.”

A pattern was beginning to emerge. One aircraft company after another would seemingly embrace the Burnelli
principle, enthuse about its potential, then suddenly cool on the notion. In 1974, for example, Boeing revealed
plans for an air-freighter called the 754, which to the layman's eye is uncannily similar to a Burnelli. Goodlin
thought so too, and sent Boeing a letter to the effect that he would be glad to negotiate a licence agreement.
Shortly afterwards, Boeing cancelled the project.

In 1983 a promising liaison with Deutsche Airbus ended with the company turning down the Burnelli design.
According to Goodlin, Dr Franz Joseph Strauss, then company president and formerly prime minister of
Bavaria, announced, “It's all politics. The Burnelli Company has an American problem and it must be resolved
in the United States.”

It began to look as if that might happen a year later, when, says Goodlin, “George Bush Sr took the correction
of the Burnelli problem on as a vice-presidential project.” Bush's White House counsel, Boyden Gray, took
charge of the matter, and set up talks between the Burnelli Company and the navy, which came to nothing.

Then Goodlin got a call from a Briton of his acquaintance called Brian G Wilson, a senior research engineer at
Northrop, builder of the B-2 stealth bomber. Wilson was interested in the possibility of incorporating Burnelli's
designs into a new navy aircraft project. But when Goodlin sent a letter to the Chief Executive of Northrop,
asking for written confirmation, “I got a letter back from their legal department, saying they were a designer of
their own airplanes and they weren't interested in taking a licence from Burnelli.”

47
Goodlin views these incidents as successive evidence of high-level conspiracy. He is convinced that on each
occasion, when those at the top of the MIC got wind of developments, they acted to crush any hope of Burnelli
getting a look-in. Wilson, who now teaches at the Aeronautics and Astronautics Department of the University of
Southampton, has a different - and illuminating - view of the affair.

“Chalmers is a feisty son of a gun,” says Wilson, accurately. “One of the problems is that he's always thought
the government were out to screw him, because that's the story of his life, and of course, Vincent Burnelli's life.
Chalmers has taken the role of the hurt suitor all the way down the road, and I think he's done himself in that
way.

“The Burnelli people think that's the only way you can design an aeroplane. It's one way, but not the only way.
My view is we needed to have an analysis done so we could look at the merits of it. Instead of letting me go
ahead, Chalmers suddenly fires off a letter to the chairman, Tom Jones, and starts making demands. There's a
history here, a pattern. He's written letters like that to Boeing and everybody else. Most aircraft manufacturers
will say, „If that's the case, you can keep it.‟

“I was called in to explain myself to the company lawyers, who said, „Look, this guy is obviously a kook.
You're to back off, you're not to use his stuff, and while you're employed at Northrop, you're not to have any
more communication with him.‟ It was all open and above board within the Northrop hierarchy. That ended a
very nice, long relationship that I had with Chalmers on designing aeroplanes. One magazine article about it
said that he didn't just shoot himself in the foot, he shot it off.”

In other words, it is perfectly possible that, against all natural justice, the future of the Burnelli design and the
interests of the Burnelli Company have become separated and, eventually, opposed. And it is equally possible
that in attempting to champion both, Goodlin has benefited neither.

Goodlin professes that a number of aircraft have used the Burnelli principle without acknowledgement. He cites
the Grumman F-15 fighter from 1972 - which is indeed notably similar to Burnelli's own 1947 fighter design -
and points out that Boeing's projected “Blended Wing Body' super plane for up to 800 passengers looks much
like Burnelli's 1951 transporter. As for the B-2, it may resemble a lifting body, but Wilson insists it is based on
a different principle known as the “flying wing.”

Goodlin has also conducted a long-running spat with NASA over the provenance of their next space shuttle, the
X-33. NASA does not deny this is a lifting body craft, but credits the idea to research done in 1951 by their own
men, Harvey Allen and Alfred Eggers. There does seem to be a logical incongruity between the still unretracted
1941 report dismissing the lifting body as worthless, and NASA's position that the lifting body has merit, but is
not Burnelli's work.

It seems grossly unfair, but inevitable, that Goodlin should have to tolerate the violation of Burnelli's patents in
order to further the cause of Burnelli's invention. The notion may well be inconceivable to Goodlin, a veteran of
aviation's Wild West days, a risk-taker and buccaneer with a keenly honed sense of honour. That may be why
the only explanation he can accept is one of wicked machinations over a sixty-year period.

The phrase “military-industrial complex” is Dwight Eisenhower's. He warned against its influence in his 1960
presidential farewell speech. It has since become the touchstone of conspiracy theorists, who attribute any and
every event they can think of to its malign influence.

Could Burnelli have been deliberately suffocated by the American state for all these years? Conceivably. But
how much more likely it is that a single, illicit act of Oval Office spite set off a chain of escalating action and
reaction, which served to bury Burnelli more effectively than any dark plot. That - as Brian Wilson suggests -
48
Goodlin possesses a legitimate but self-fulfilling sense of grievance. That with each avowal of outrage and
recrimination he has been branded ever more of a crank. A broken record, easily ignored.

Whatever one concludes about Chalmers Goodlin and his worldview, none of it alters the potential value of
Burnelli's design. “The Burnelli shape should be looked at,” maintains Brian Wilson. “Because it survived a
crash in the 1930s, it's extrapolated that this configuration is inherently safer. That's an arguable point. But we
haven't done enough work in the industry to find out.” In Dr Edmund Cantilli's opinion, had the lessons of that
1935 Burnelli crash been heeded, “The course and image of commercial aviation would have been altered
considerably, especially in terms of the thousands of lives not lost.”

“One day,” said Vincent Burnelli in 1950, “they will see that I am right.” This, of course, is the mantra of the
deluded and obsessed down the ages. But it is also the credo of those who happen to be right.

All material on this site is copyrighted (c) to David Bennun and may not be reprinted or reused without
permission, not even by the MIC.

www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Military/slick_goodlin.htm

Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin, "An Honorary Canadian" - Bruce Ricketts

It is said that progress happens when men stand on the shoulders of other
men.

When Marc Garneau became the first Canadian in space he rode on the
shoulders of the likes of John Glenn, Gus Grissom and many others.

Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier on October 14, 1947. At that time he
had been a pilot for only six years. Yeager made his momentous progress
standing on the shoulders of Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin, a former-RCAF pilot
and, what should be, an Honorary Canadian.

While not a Canadian citizen, Goodlin's connection to Canada, through the

wartime RCAF and another interesting connection that we will discuss in a
later story, qualifies him for inclusion on Mysteries of Canada.

Chalmers Goodlin was born in 1923. In 1941, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force on his 18th birthday,
hoping to get some fighter combat over the English Channel. (authors note: the US did not enter the war until
1942) He became the youngest commissioned officer in
the RCAF and in mid-1942, he reached England. In
December 1942, Goodlin was enticed to leave the RCAF
for the US Navy and training as a Navy test pilot. In 1943,
he was released from active duty never having the
opportunity to fire a shot at an enemy.

In December 1943, Goodlin joined Bell Aircraft as a test

pilot. After 26 missions in the X-1, the experimental
aircraft seen at the left, he was on track to become the first
pilot to take the X-1 to Mach 1. However, in June 1947,

49
the US government took over the project from Bell and installed its own pilot, Chuck Yeager, in the machine.

Goodlin, in a recent message to this author, stated, "I believe my RCAF flight training was invaluable for my
career, and the accompanying military schooling was great character building for a 18 year old fresh off the
farm." Approximately 10% of the RCAF enlistments at the beginning of WWII were Americans like Chalmers
Goodlin.

It is estimated that there were 140 "Aces" created in the RCAF

throughout the war. In addition to these heroes, 26 American Ace
fliers were made "Honorary Canadians" by their comrades-in-the-air
for their service in the RCAF. The accompanying pictures were sent to
the author by Slick Goodlin.

The top image of a freshly-minted and proud Pilot Officer Chalmers

Goodlin was taken Dec 5, 1941 in Dunnville, Ontario. The middle
image (autographed by Slick) of Goodlin and the X-1 was taken Dec
10. 1946 at the Muroc Army Air Corps Flight Test Centre in
California. The lower photograph, taken at Winnipeg in the Spring of
1942, is of Goodlin stepping into the cockpit of an RCAF Westland
Lysander.

Also, look at our stories on the Canadian Car & Foundry, which
involved Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin.

UPDATE: Good friend and Honorary Canadian, Chalmers Goodlin died on October 20, 2005 at the age of 82.
He will be missed.
Copyright 1998-2006 to identified author. All rights reserved.

Obituary
The East Hampton Star, East Hampton, Long Island.
July 2, 1964,

VINCENT J. BURNELLI
An American Pioneer aircraft designer will be recorded in history for his
outstanding contributions to aviation development. This is attested to by the
Smithsonian Institute, United States Patent Office, the Early Birds, the Quiet
Birdmen, Institute of Aerospace Sciences, etc. A large number of aviation
firsts were designed and built by him, among them the first "lifting fuselage";
the first great American airliner; the first air freighters; the first multi-engine
aircraft with retractable landing gear; the first flat-metal stressed-skin
construction in American aircraft design; the first reduction to practice of the
breakaway leading edge in conjunction with high lift flaps (currently used on
most high-speed jet craft).

Vincent Burnelli was to have received the Billy Mitchell bronze medal award
on Sunday, June 21st, 1964, from a group of Long Island Early Flyers

50
assembled at the Sea Spray Inn to honor his creative genius. A heart attack on Friday at the Sea Spray, from
which he never recovered, prevented his receiving it.

He died fighting for the just rewards due him, but denied by bureaucracy in this "land of the free and the home
of the brave." His aircraft proved time and again in official wind tunnel tests and actual flying performance to
be far superior in inherent safety features, speed, weight carrying ability. It cut landing speeds in half on less
than half the needed length of runaway; BUT, when the booming lend-lease aircraft business came along in the
1937-1939 era, Burnelli was unable to compete with entrenched conventional airframe manufacturers who were
quickly subsidized by the Pentagon. Gen. H. H. Arnold, for example, stated; "In my opinion it is essential, in
the interests of national defense, that this Burnelli procurement be authorized."

The UB-14's pilot, Lou Reichers wrote in his book "The Flying Years" in 1956: "Vincent Burnelli... still has the
most efficient design, but his competitors have all the business."

A major manufacturer's senior executive wrote: "we know Burnelli airplanes are superior and we would love to
build them but the Pentagon won't let us, and we can't afford to bite the hand that feeds us."

Aircraft experts predicted that the flying would be reality by 1947, offering greater speed, greater roominess,
greater safety. An associate of Mr. Burnelli said: "indeed it should have been, and would have been had it not
been for outright dishonesty, conspiracy and restraint of trade deliberately practiced by individuals in the
Department of Defense and N.A.C.A."

This, in the "land of the free and home of the brave... With liberty and justice for all."

This brief review is written by a fellow flyer and tribute to a very great American in the hopes that others will
realize how bureaucracy has retarded American aviation and flight safety, and will wake up to the menace of
growing bureaucracy all along the governmental way.

51