When Boeing recently announced their new "Sonic Cruiser" [see picture below], we were astonished to note that it is simply a rehash of the same, old, obsolete, conventional technology; A fragile tubular fuselage with engines and landing gear attached to the fuel tank supporting structure (in combination with excessively high take-off and landing speeds on over-stressed tires), is nothing but a recipe for a  fiery crash. The acclaimed increase in cruising speed to Mach .95 adds another questionable dimension, known to professionals as the stall/mach buffet corner. Some call it 'the coffin corner'. We believe Boeing has a duty to explain this problem fully to the flying public.

What baffles so many people, is that Boeing has known for decades how the Burnelli configuration eliminates the aforementioned, fundamental flaws, inherent in the conventional layout.

Boeing has also known the Burnelli design places the bulk of the aircraft structure around the passengers, which provides a safety cage for them in the event of a crash. For Boeing to ignore these dramatic Burnelli advances in air transport safety, despite abundant empirical evidence and scientific facts, implies a callous disregard for protecting passengers' lives.

In 1995, McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) and NASA said of the Lifting Body (BWB) aircraft they unveiled: "The resulting configuration resembles the Northrop B-2, and offers dramatic improvements in aerodynamic and structural efficiency. Projections indicate a fuel-burn saving of 28% relative to a conventional double-deck transport of equivalent technology." Of course, they were referring to a copy of Mr. Burnelli's 1940's aircraft design technology and claiming some, if not all, of the benefits which had been announced and repeated by Mr. Burnelli and his company during the previous six decades.

What they didn't speak about is the dramatic improvements in safety, due to the fact that on Burnelli/Lifting-Body aircraft landing gear and engines are not attached to fuel tank supporting structure, and take-offs and landings can take place at far lower speeds for a given weight aircraft thus eliminating the greatest causes of deaths which are fire and a lack of structural integrity of the cabin.

Boeing knows that the conventional jetliner is riddled with safety problems, because the accidents which have occurred over the years have depicted this very graphically.  Boeing also knows it has never tackled the safety issue seriously; this was recognized by Ken Luplow , a retired Senior Vice President of Boeing in 1983!  It seems to be Boeing's policy to continue to ignore safety.

"The use of Burnelli airliners would reduce air crash fatalities by 85%" 1983 - Prof. E.J. Cantilli New York Polytechnic

So why does Boeing refuse to recognize Mr. Burnelli and his advanced technology? Would it be admitting to guilt over the deaths of thousands over the last six decades due to their unwillingness to build a safer, more economical aircraft during that time?

We wonder how long it will take the legal profession to finally latch onto the willful disregard for safety in the design of modern aircraft. In fact, we are surprised that the law profession has failed to bring up this disregard for safety during lawsuits. Very curious indeed.

So we put it to you, why should we pay with our money and our lives so that the run-amok misdeeds of corporations and government agencies can continue to remain hidden?

_______________________________