Generally, the media, whether print or television, has an aversion to talking about Burnelli. There are some notable exceptions: Last November, WPEC FOX TV News in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, did an excellent five-minute expose about Burnelli safety. The Burnelli Company has offered to make these available at cost to anyone who'd like a copy. (Send $7.- to The Burnelli Company).

Last year and on a continuing basis, Aviation Oracle, a prominent aviation industry newsletter, started writing about Burnelli and exposing the Pentagon's stone-walling. Most recently, another widely esteemed industry newsletter, Air Safety Week, in their June 12, 2000 issue, published a story detailing the advantages of lifting body transports over the conventional streamlined fuselage designs.

The article was enlightening in view of the fact that it exposed the true safety limitations of the conventional aircraft and the factors that limit any enhancements to safety while maintaining the commercial cruise speed capability. The article outlines a major problem of the conventional jets, wherein it is impossible to build an aircraft that flies high and fast and at slow speed for take-offs and landings. To build an aircraft that can fly high and fast and land at speeds down to maybe 140mph or slightly below: "The first step is to apply basic aerodynamic trickery which includes a variety of flaps, spoilers, slots, slats and anything else that works ... thrust reversers, wing spoilers, anti-skid systems and really big brakes. This contributes more weight and less performance to the plane."

The article further points out that "an airplane landing at 140 mph needs a runway four times longer than one landing at 70 mph" and "forces in a crash of 140 mph are four times those at 70 mph." In other words for the purposes of safety, an aircraft that lands at slower speeds is safer. You knew that, right? We did, too, but we liked the full, logical explanation contained in the article, which, is unfortunately too long for us to reproduce here.

The author concludes: "This is not a new idea by any means. In 1930 [sic], Vincent J. Burnelli designed and built such a plane the aerodynamic qualities of the Burnelli offer some attractive advantages." However he mentions NASA's Blended-Wing-Body (an euphemism for Burnelli Lifting-Body) and NASA's research as the way of the future.

While we at aircrash are very grateful for the coverage, we believe the article would have been more complete and would have had more impact if the close relationship of NASA's so-called "Blended Wing Body" (BWB) to Mr. Burnelli's 1940s technology had been disclosed rather than highlighting a Burnelli CBY-3 picture. NASA's research is a reinvention of the wheel since NASA simply copied Mr. Burnelli's 1940s airframe configuration as well as the jet engine installation, covered by Burnelli Patent # 2,586,299, filed September 11, 1945 & issued February 19, 1952. Please note the comparison of the 1951 Burnelli model with the NASA/BOEING BWB above.

NASA has a plethora of valuable Burnelli Lifting Body technology in the NACA files at Langley Field. These files include the complete Burnelli wind tunnel studies by Dr. Alexander Klemin, the Dean of the Guggenheim School of Aeronautics at New York University from the mid 1920s to the mid-1940s. This Burnelli technical information and that of NACA up through 1948 prove conclusively that the Burnelli principle of design has always been immensely superior to conventional counterparts. Therefore, the potential benefits, now claimed by NASA for their BWB, have always been available in the Burnelli Lifting Body designs despite NACA and NASA's previous statements to the contrary. In 1940, NYU's Professor Alexander Klemin said it all when he stated:

  "The general conclusion is inescapable: The Burnelli principles offer an advance in the art, in efficiency and economy."

Fifteen years ago, Mr. Goodlin of the Burnelli Company was contacted by a Virginian engineering student who asked him where he could get an independent confirmation of Burnelli superiority. He was directed to the NASA Research Center at Langley Field and told to ask for the NYU and NACA wind tunnel reports on Burnelli aircraft. A week or so later, the student phoned Mr. Goodlin to report that a NASA official showed him the huge Burnelli files, but he would not permit him to examine them because they were "Classified"! Are the files classified so that NASA can again charge the American people tons of money for research and development that was already accomplished decades ago without taxpayers money? If they let on to what they already know, they can never get the money for nothing and yes, we are accusing them of fraud - see the NASA section of our web-site - along with most of the media who are in general nothing but industry lapdogs with some exceptions such as Air Safety Week, Aviation Oracle and WPEC FOX TV.

We thank all those who've had the integrity to expose the Burnelli conspiracy to others and we ask you, the reader, to write Air Safety Week, Aviation Oracle and WPEC FOX TV and compliment them. The media has played a major role, aiding and abetting an egregious conspiracy now six decades old, and preventing the public from knowing about the superior, safer and less costly Burnelli air transport technology. Those who refuse to participate in this criminal behavior are to be commended and rewarded. Please reward the following by thanking them:

AirSafety Week at: devans@phillips.com

Aviation Oracle at:mba@mba-consulting.com

WPEC FOX TV at:rcapobianco@raycommedia.com