The Burnelli Web Site
Evidence of Suppression and Official denial is overwhelming
Complete document in Acrobat PDF format [size: 120K]
Emphasis Added

April 17, 1941
SUBJECT: Mr. Burnelli vs. Central Aircraft Corporation
  1. Every angle of the controversy between Mr. Burnelli and the Central Aircraft Corporation over the rights to the design of an attack bomber have been considered by our technical and legal staff during the past year.

  2. From a legal point of view, it is possible that the Central Aircraft Corporation could utilize the Burnelli principle.  However, the attack bomber which it is now propose to place in production is obsolete due to changes in this type of airplane made necessary as a result of combat experience.  If a new design, embodying the Burnelli principle, is to be laid down, it is believe that, regardless of legal controversies, Burnelli should be identified with the project, since he is the originator of the idea .  Accordingly, he was furnished the new military requirements for an accompanying fighter.  This is not a production, but purely an experimental proposition.

  3. In the attached draft of a letter to Mr. Peto, for your signature, these points have been brought out.  In addition, reference is made to the stripping of the Keyport plant of its machine tools in order to, as we understand it, provide production facilities in Canada for the Hurricanes.  If this production is to be stopped, tools should be brought back to the United States if they are usable.
O.F. Echols,
Brig. General, U.S.A.
Chief, Materiel Division
1. Letter to Mr. Peto
2. Ltr fr Mr. Peto, 3/31/41
3. Ltr fr Mr. Peto, 4/8/41, w/report
4. Memo fr Gen. Echols to Mr. Lovett, 3/14/41
        w/memo fr. Gen. Kenney, 3/13/41
5. cc memo to Gen. Echols 3/25/41 fr. Mr.
        Lovett w/cc ltr to Mr. Peto, 3/25/41
End of Memo
Return to "top" of article and proceed to:
"Problem", "Solution", or "Suppression" or press the BACK arrow to return to the article you were reading.