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. In a nutshell, why are Burnelli's designs so great?

   The brilliance of Burnelli's genius is found in the multi-purpose use of the same structure: the structure is used not only as a safety cage (Burnelli's aircraft structure is65% vs. 15%for the conventional aircraft) in the event of an accident but it provides for the air-loads, ground-loads, pressurization loads and attachment points for the engines and landing-gear. Also, the attachment points for the outboard wings, which are devoid of landing-gear and engine cut-outs which means greater fuel capacity and theisolation of the fuel tanksfrom the majorfiresources (engines & landing-gear).
   To top it all off, the configuration permits much slower take-off and landing speeds, thus vastly reducing tire-stress while greatly increasing payloads, internal volume and useable floor area.
   For an excellent discussion of safety see theCrashes Can Be Harmlessarticle.

2. Conventional aircraft very often catch fire during / after a crash, which is the cause of many fatalities, not the crash itself why isn't it the case with a Burnelli?

   Contrary to the conventional design, the Burnelli Lifting-Body design attaches the engines and landing gear, the major fire-sources, to the main structure (body) rather than on the wings and therefore they'reisolated from the fuel tanks.

3. Is the Lifting-Body truly more efficient than the Conventional design?

   Please seedetailed explanation

4. Is an aircraft based upon the Burnelli Lifting-Body aircraft principle of design SAFER?

   Pleaseclick herefor answer.

5. Is a Burnelli a Flying Wing?

   No, the Burnelli is actually a lifting body, which is an approach to the pure flying wing, but the Burnelli lifting-body design eliminates the stability and control problems, which plagues the pure flying wing. [read more in-depth explanation]

6. Isn't the B-2 a flying wing?

   Many people have referred to theB-2as a flying-wing but in fact it is more accurately described as a lifting body. It is closer to the elliptical form, the ideal aerodynamic shape, which is the basis for Mr. Burnelli's technology. This combines the ultimate in the marriage of sound structure and practical aerodynamics and contrasts with the Northrop B-35/B-49 type flying wing which proved to be aerodynamically unstable and structurally weak because of the long load paths employed. This caused theB-49to break-up in the air and crash. Unfortunately, while the manufacturers of the B-2 utilized Burnelli technology in designing the aircraft, they made a hash of it. It is possible you are confused by the propaganda that the B-2 is a derivation of the NorthropB-35/B-49flying wing when this is clearly not the case. (seemore details)

7. I am told the Burnelli design technology is not appropriate for general aviation sized aircraft. Is this true?

   No, it is not true. Compromises are required in designing smaller Burnelli type aircraft but they still end up being more efficient and safer than the conventional counterpart as demonstrated by the Hyperbike, the DikeDelta and Barnaby Wainfan's Facetmobile.

8. What are the Flight Characterstics of a Burnelli Lifting-Body aircraft?

   Pleaseclick hereto see comments from a Burnelli pilot.

9. I've read somewhere that it was impossible to pressurize a non-tubular aircraft, is it so?

   That is a misconception and is proven by the factBOEING / McDonnell Douglas,Aerospatiale and the Russians have all selected lifting body designs for their 800-1000 passenger megaplanes. Furthermore, NASA has chosen Burnelli Lifting-Body technology for theX-33, as the new space shuttle.