The Burnelli Web Site
This is just the tip of the iceberg
spacer

 

CONSPIRACY FAQ

Due to the high volume of email asking similar questions, this section is designed to help reduce our workload and answer your questions rapidly.

 

  1. Saying there's a conspiracy is ludicrous. What evidence do you have?

    See Burnelli Company C.E.O., Chalmers H. Goodlin's response. 

  2. Why doesn't Burnelli sue the manufacturers for stealing Burnelli technology for airplanes like the F-14, F-15, F-22, Aurora , and X-33?

    See McDonnell Douglas, 6 November 1984 letter.

    If you've read the McDonnell Douglas letter mentioned above, you know suing the manufacturers won't work, they have an agreement with the government and the government will protect them. The Congressional Record shows that this agreement is designed to defraud the people and inventors of their rights. Suing the government is not an option in light of the above and even if it was, the Burnelli Company has been denied the right to be in business and acquire funds in a commercial manner with which to take legal action against the manufacturers or the government. The only court which can decide on the merits of the case without being influenced by corruption, is the court of public opinion (you). HELP! 

  3. Very successful military aircraft using the Burnelli principle are flying today, why aren't there any civilian Burnelli aircraft flying today?

    1. Military contractors hide behind the Pentagon for any license infringements, the manufacturer of a civilian aircraft doesn't have that option.
    2. Why civilian manufacturers refuse to take a license from the Burnelli company is inexplicable but you may want to ask Boeing yourself (McDonnell Douglas is now owned by Boeing). The BOEING email address is:

       wwwmail.boeing@pss.boeing.com.

  1. Why doesn't the Burnelli Company just build Burnelli airplanes?

    The fraudulent 1941 U.S. Army Air Corps Board of Review Report has been so widely disseminated by the Pentagon, including an appearance in a Securities and Exchance Commision (SEC) stop order against the Burnelli Company in 1957, that funds have been denied the Burnelli Company. Until that report has been retracted it has been made clear that funds will not be available.

    You can help by emailing a protest to Secretary of Defense William Cohen and demanding a retraction of the technical falsifications in the September 17, 1941 Report (AG 452.1 (10-16-41)MC) -- bureaucrats take action only after receiving widespread protest -- please be sure to write:

     dpcintrn@osd.pentagon.mil?

    If you have a direct email address for Secretary Cohen, would you please send it to us 

  2. Why doesn't BOEING take a license from Burnelli?

    The unrelenting aircrash fatalities and hull losses have caused the Burnelli Company to repeatedly offer BOEING a license agreement but BOEING has always refused for reasons incomprehensible. Maybe you'll be more successful - ask them: email address is:

     wwwmail.boeing@pss.boeing.com 

  3. Why haven't overseas manufacturers taken a license from Burnelli?

    Burnelli has found that all European manufacturers are subject to Washington approval on any new project. Here are some examples:

    In 1962 Dr. Gabrielli, Chief of FIAT aviation said they knew Burnelli airplane were superior but as FIATs biggest customer was NATO, FIAT could not get involved with Burnelli and alienate the Pentagon.

    In 1983 Deutsche Airbus invited Mr. Goodlin (of the Burnelli Company) to a meeting in Hamburg at which the Airbus Chief Design engineer, Dr. Klug, said: "The only meaningful way to improve air-transport safety and economics is to implement the lifting-body design." But soon after, the Chairman of Airbus, Dr. Franz Josef Strauss, advised Mr. Goodlin: "Burnelli has an American problem and it must be resolved in the United States."

  4. Why hasn't the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astornautics) supported Burnelli because of the unique safety characteristics of the Burnelli Lifting Body design?

    This answer can only come from the AIAA. Email address is:

    Executive Director, Cort Durocher, cortd@aiaa.org 

    Please forward their answers to aircrash@aircrash.org if possible.

  5. Why hasn't the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) supported Burnelli in view of the unique safety characteristics of the Burnelli Lifting Body design?

    A close look at FSF membership indicates that for all intents and purposes it acts as lobbying organization for the major manufacturers (military & commercial aerospace). These manufacturers have repeatedly refused to take a license from Burnelli while building Burnelli type aircraft for the Pentagon. The FSF has shown that its primary responsibility is to its membership and will not recognize competitive products from others. Therefore the FSF should not qualify as a tax-free organization.

    You may want to ask the FSF directly why they refuse to recognize Burnelli and the safety of his airplanes. Their email address is: corporate@flightsafety.org (Make sure you address your comments to: Stuart Matthews, President & CEO)

    Flight Safety Foundation
    601 Madison Street, Suite 300
    Alexandria, VA 22314 U.S.
    Telephone: +(703) 739-6700
    Fax: +(703) 739-6708

     

  6. Why aren't airlines interested in the safer, Burnelli aircraft?

    From the answers below, it is virtually impossible to know why they aren't interested. Read them yourself. Then, you might want to ask the airlines why they aren't interested in safer and more economical airplanes. Send email to airlines 

    A February 6, 1964 letter from W.A.Patterson, Chairman & CEO of United Airlines reads as follows:

    "I am extremely disappointed to advise you that United Air Lines does not participate in aircraft development work that is not related to our present day operation."

    In November 2, 1984, letter to the Burnelli Company, D.P. Hettermann, Senior vice President of Technical Operations for Delta Airlines, wrote:

    "I think, too, in the manufacturing side, as well as the operational area, certain facilities, equipment and capabilities have established long held precedents which are most difficult to overcome regarding total configuration change."

    In an August 5, 1983 letter to the Burnelli Company, Bernard Wood, Secretary & Legal Director for British Airways wrote:

    "I am sure you will readily appreciate that to a very large extent it is the aircraft manufacturers who determine the design of aircraft that are offered to airlines. I am therefore sending a copy of your letter to Boeing who, I am sure, will be very interested"

    Richard L. Spaulding, Vice President of Aircraft Sales and Services wrote the following on February 8, 1985:

    "I have passed on the information you forwarded on the Burnelli aircraft to the appropriate individuals at USAir for their perusal. I am advised that we have no interest in the aircraft or design at this time."

    President & CEO of Martinair Holland, J. M. Shroeder wrote on 7 January 1993:

    "In our discussions with aircraft manufacturers we constantly stress for operational and structural changes in order to improve the overall safety level, which seems to be accomplished and scientifically proven by some of the features in the Burnelli lifting body aircraft design. Considering the size of our company we are unfortunately not in the position to have manufacturers design and produce completely new aircraft concepts."

  7. Why does the Pentagon refuse to retract the 1941 U.S. Army Air Corps Board of Review report in view of the 1939 General Hap Arnold Report and the fact that the Pentagon and NASA have been funding Burnelli competitors to build airplanes using Burnelli Technology such as the B-2, F-14, F-15, F-22, Aurora, and X-33?

    The Pentagon has refused to respond to Burnelli about this question. Maybe they'll tell you. Their email address is: dpcintrn@osd.pentagon.mil 

    OASD(PA)/DPC
    1400 Defense Pentagon, Room 1E757
    Washington, DC 20301-1400
    Phone: (703) 697-5737

  8. Why does the Smithsonian Book of Flight make no mention of Mr. Burnelli and his airplanes?

    It is inexplicable. The Burnelli Company has protested this on many occasions, in vain. The answer can only come from the Smithsonian, their email address is: si.mheyman@ic.si.edu 

    Mr. Ira Michael Heyman, Secretary
    Smithsonian Institution
    Washington, D.C. 20560

  9. Does the Boeing Company know about the Burnelli patents?

     Click here for response from the Burnelli Company.

  10. Why does NASA refuse to correct their fallacious claim that it was a NASA engineer who conceived of the Lifting Body design in 1957?

It is all very mystifying considering that the Smithsonian, in 1937, credited Mr. Burnelli with "the first design to employ an airfoil section fuselage" and in 1941 General Echols wrote: "If a new design, embodying the Burnelli principle, is to be laid down, it is believed that, regardless of legal controversies, Burnelli should be identified with the project since he is the originator of the idea*." And Jean Roche, retired USAF chief of Airplane Design for 43 years stated in 1965:

    "The superiority and the necessity for lifting bodies is now generally recognized by the American Air Force, its contractors, and NASA."
    ....
    "Burnelli was first to recognize and apply the above principles, and everybody is now sorry they did not think of them first. He was ahead of his time by more than the legal life of his patents, and now those who did not think, persist in justifying their backwardness by offering the DC-3 as the best airplane we ever had and, therefore, Burnelli was wrong Q.E.D."

     

    * This quote is drawn from research for a soon to be published biography on Mr. Burnelli.
HomeTop
PreviousNext