Long Range Aircraft
The text below is a
transcript of portions of Report TD-003, namely the
Acknowledgements page and the Introduction page in addition to the
Results page of the Comparative Computations Report written by Dr.
Max Munk. The report was issued in March 1943.
The Authors wish gratefully to acknowledge the
valuable assistance of the following:
Dr. Max Munk
Washington, D.C., Comparative Performance Calculations.
Dr. J.H. Parkin and Mr. G.S. Levy, National
Research Council of Canada, for Assistance in Wind Tunnel
Mr. Murray Semple, Canadian Car & Foundry
Co. Ltd., for his continuous co-operation."
Extensive research proves the superiority of the
lifting fuselage principle over conventional practice applied to
large long range authorities, Dr. Alexander
Klemin, Dr. Max Munk and other
A non-stop schedule from London to new York,
carrying 100 passengers, is chosen as a rational basis for
comparing the efficiency of a lifting fuselage type with that of a
conventional aircraft, this route being known to cover the
greatest volume of traffic and the longest non-stop run (4,500
miles still air).
To meet these requirements, and provide a real
yardstick for comparison, the following designs are computed;
(A) A six-engined Burnelli Transport called the "B"
project. See dwg. B-2000 specification and
illustrations pages 19 to 25.
(B) A six-engined Burnelli twin boom bomber which is
the military version of the B-2000. Pages 26 to 28.
(C) A six-engined conventional transport aeroplane
known as the "V" project. See Dwg. V-1000,
specification and illustrations Pages 29 to 37
These aircraft have the same span, 220 ft., same
total take-off power, 20,000 H.P. and same gross weight, 220,000
lbs., thus differences in useful load and performance result only
from improved basic design.
To further illustrate the possibilities of the
Burnelli lifting fuselage applied to the construction of giant
planes, the preliminary design of a large semi tail-less flying
wing is included, see dwg. B-1000, specification and
illustrations pages 40 to 47."
The B project has a
smaller drag . This is the natural
consequence of the substitution of two small booms for a large
fuselage. The total wing area is larger, but there still
remains a balance in favor of the B project, although the
difference by itself is not striking.
Both projects having the same weight and span, and
both projects having a wing plane view reasonably close to an
elliptical one, it can be confidently expected that both projects
will give equal induced drag under equal conditions.
The B project requires
furthermore a lighter structure only, thus having a larger
capacity for freight .
Since thus the B project
exceeds the V project in every respect, in smallness of drag, in
smallness of weight of the structure, and also in some other ways
that are not within the scope of this report, but tend to decrease
the drag farther, it results that the B project is the better
one. It exceeds the V project in all performance
items. The superiority is particularly pronounced in its
cargo carrying capacity over long distances. This is aided
by the smaller structural weight, and to a lessor degree by the
somewhat smaller drag. The B project carries more than one
and a half times the freight of the V project over 4500
It is well to keep in
mind that the superior performance of the B project is not in any
way obtained by sacrificing a small landing speed, but on the
contrary: the B project has a smaller wing loading and in
consequence will definitely land much slower than the V
project. It is doubtful whether the high landing speed of
the V project will make it suitable for commercial
operations. Increasing the wing area of the V project for
the purpose of bringing its landing speed down to the landing
speed of the B project will further increase its drag and its
structural weight. A comparison between such modified V
project and the B project would be more fair the B project.
It would show even larger superiority of the B project over and in
comparison with the conventional design."