Part 1 of 6

In this part, allegations made by Boeing Engineer (who did protest so much that he didn't speak for Boeing that it irritated a number of list-subscribers) - not necessarily in order of utterance:

If you wish to research this more in depth and wish to view the myriad of messages regarding this topic, you can access the vortex archive at:http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html

With regard to Mr. Lajoie's six emails on the Burnelli subject of July 2 and July 3, 2000:

It is pointless to dwell on theory when there is a plethora of factual evidence at hand, which proves that the Burnelli configuration totally outclasses the streamlined fuselage designs. For example, let us go back to 1948 when the USAF conducted a flight-test evaluation of the Burnelli CBY-3 at Wright Field. Shortly afterwards the Defense Department ordered a conventional design of similar size to be built in Canada called the AC-1A. Both the Burnelli CBY-3 and the AC-1A were powered by the same engines & both licensed by Canadian Dept. Of Transport. Both were licensed at gross weights of 28,500 lbs. and by using total horsepower value (2,900) as a common denominator and extracting all values from Defense Dept. Flight test reports, it's possible to compare salient efficiency:

CBY-3 (Lifting-Body) v. AC-1A (Conventional)
comparative table

 MCBY-100 (Lifting-Body) v. AC-II (Conventional)
comparative table

Boeing 754 (Lifting-Body) v. Boeing 767 (Conventional)
comparative table

When the Burnelli Company became aware of the Boeing 754, a letter was written to Boeing pointing out that the B-754 violated the Burnelli patent and intellectual property rights but that the Burnelli Company would be glad to negotiate a license agreement with the Boeing Company. The Boeing Company responded saying that while:

"we have considered such lifting-body aircraft in our studies; however, other designs appear more promising to us at this time. Accordingly, we are not interested in acquiring patent or proprietary rights from the Burnelli Company." (Boeing letter of June 13, 1977 Ref: 6-1101-9-227)

Nothing further was heard on the B-754 since that time.

With all respect the above examples clearly point out that the Burnelli configuration offers much greater value per horse-power employed while offering much lower take-off and landing speeds and providing unparalleled safety advantages.

With regard to your inquiry about Northrop's relationship to Burnelli, it is my opinion that Northrop was a "Johnny come lately" in the lifting body / flying-wing field. I refer you to George Larson's (present editor of the Smithsonian Air & Space magazine) article "The Flying Wing" which appeared in Business and Commercial Aviation, March 1985:

"Americans, too, were active in tailless design. The first to touch on the concept was Vincent Burnelli, who really aimed at the span-loader idea with a "lifting body" fuselage shaped like an airfoil intended to contribute to lift. (Anyone who has seen an experimental design called the Hyperbipe perform its aerobatics routine in air shows can imagine Burnelli's design without seeing it in a photograph.) And then there was Northrop."

"The Flying Wing," Business & Commercial Aviation,
March 1985, pages 35-39 - quote on page 38.

Strangely, since joining the Smithsonian, Mr. Larson seems to have forgotten what he wrote in 1985.