The Burnelli saga.

Found OA-1 3views

I found this thread because I was after a 3view of the OA-1 which I came across many years ago in an article in Aeromodeller magazine. I’ve since lost the magazine.
I’ve not done too bad using the 3views from this thread but fine detail is difficult. I emailed the Smithsonian and amazingly they replied. Not only a very nice letter giving further references but a beautiful 1:72 3view and a copy of the original Aeromodeller article which also has a 1:144 3view. 🙂

So thank you for this thread and thank you Smithsonian. I’ve got some building to do!!!

Nik

Just came across a 1938 Flight analysis of the Cunliffe Owen effort. Not being fussed one way or another, and not being fond of conspiracy theories, I haven’t read the article. It starts here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1938/1938%20-%203600.html

NB It’s a PDF link, so needs (free) Adobe Acrobat to read it.

There’s an advert a few pages earlier, also.

It’s no secret that the airliner business is incredibly conservative. Almost like the car industry. In the end it’s customer driven.

Which customer are you talking about, the flying public or the airline?

Neither has much choice, it’s one type of tube with wings or another.

Thanks for the lesson in technolological terminology, but whichever way you prefer to look at it, we haven’t got anything like it flying commercially, after 80 years.

Others appear to disagree with that:
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Burnelli/OtherBurnelli.htm

It may well be unsuitable as a modern jetliner configuration as we know it, probably because the design wasn’t built as such and consequently wasn’t improved over the years.

We’ve had to settle for the tube and wing configuration for so long, we’ve become accustomed to it and anything different now looks odd and out of place.

A Lifting Body:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/242495main_ECN-1088.jpg

A Flying Wing:
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/ho9/images/ho9v1_03.jpg

A Burnelli:
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Burnelli/OA-1%20Clyde%20Clipper%201942.jpg

See the difference? A lifting body has no wings, a flying wing has no fuselage, a Burnelli is a mix with aux flying surfaces.

One could say that the blended-wing-body is a modern-day Burnelli, but it evolved more from the flying wing, than from the Burnelli.
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/images/BWB&CLOUDS.JPG

It’s no secret that the airliner business is incredibly conservative. Almost like the car industry. In the end it’s customer driven.

To those who say that Burnelli’s lifting body or blended wing body of the 20s, 30s and 40s has no use in the modern world, I say neither does the triplane.

The whole point being missed by those who only think within the box, is that designers move with the times, and Burnelli was no slouch in that department.

Let’s just look at his lifting body designs, forget everything he did before that and forget his 92 patents.

Not all of the following aircraft were built, but it must be quite obvious to anyone that Burnelli’s designs did keep up with the times.

His first BWB/lifting body design, RB-1 was built in 1921:

1924 saw the flight of his RB-2:

By 1927, he moved to monoplane with the CB-16 and retractable u/c:

In 1929, the odd looking, but functional GX-3 took to the air with winglets:

The UB-20 was carrying a car in 1930:

1934, UB-14:

In 1939, the Burnelli A-1 bomber won the competition based on performance, but wasn’t awarded a contract:

Another 1939 design to win the bomber competition, but not awarded a contract, X-BAB-3:

Cunliffe Owen OA-1, 1940 (not the Clyde Clipper):

1942, B-1000:

1946, CBY-3:

1947, Burnelli fighter:

1951 Transport:

1952 Car ferry:

Last, but by no means least, his last effort before his death in 1964, the GB-888A:

All photos linked from www.aircrash.org

I think the French version is about as good as the babelfish translation into English.:D

It’s well recorded that De Gaulle used this aircraft as his personal transport at some time during the war.
How often is another question.

De Gaulle n’a jamais voyage a bord de cet avion

My school boy quality French translates this as ‘never flew on this plane’ not as the auto translator says ‘forever’ 🙂

Joglo….could you give a link to the original french text page…the idiot translation says De Gaulle used the OA-1 ‘forever’…

It was deliberately destroyed in a end of war celebration Bonfire – see it did have its uses!

Longshot, click on any one of the 9 flags displayed on the page to choose a language, or:
http://www.cocardes.org/avions/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=124

Who knows for sure, De Gaulle may still be using it.:diablo:

French Burnelli webpage

Joglo….could you give a link to the original french text page…the idiot translation says De Gaulle used the OA-1 ‘forever’ 🙂 , I want to see the french!!

Keep me informed about progress, I’ve been thinking of building again and making it my first electric at the same time. The Burnelli lifting body principal is to blame for this sudden urge, after a long time away from the building board.

At the moment, I’m torn between scale or designing something similar, but more up to date, so there’s still a bit of thinking to do.
Good luck with your project and don’t forget to post some pics as it progresses.

José

Joglo,
Now that’s more like it. I agree the “auto” translate does add to the fun. The scheme I fancy is the Free French version. The 3view is enough is build a small model for test purposes. I’ll keep looking, but thanks for your help.

After finding this page:
http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?lp=fr_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cocardes.org%2Favions%2Farticles.php%3Flng%3Dfr%26pg%3D124&.intl=uk

I now have some doubts about the authenticity of the previous 3 view.

The almost unintelligable babelfish translation from French to English is good for a laugh though.:diablo:

DATA SHEET

Type: hang-glider of transport

😀

NikB, this maybe what we’re looking for.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2014210

I haven’t had time to check it fully yet!

OA-1 3view

Thanks Joglo. I had found that one before, but a CBY-3 is not the one I’m after.

Brian, just let us all know when you get it published. Thanks.

I’m still trying to track down the 3view from Aeromodeller. It was that that started me off! It is a fascinating history and not one that I have seen modeled [flying that is] yet .

Brian, I noticed you are doing a scale drawing. Will the drawing be for sale? Please let me know.:)

I’m looking at getting them published in one of the model magazines.

Brian

Nick B, try this for size:
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Burnelli.htm

OA-1 plans

I found this thread whilst searching for info on the OA-1. The thread has made me even more interested in the machine and its history. I wish to make a flying model around 1/12 scale so I’m after some decent 3views. I’m sure Aeromodeller July 1965 has a 3view, but I’ve now lost my copy and so far I’ve been unable to find another copy.

Brian, I noticed you are doing a scale drawing. Will the drawing be for sale? Please let me know.

I’m after a winter project and I’m ready to do a scratch build. Multi-engined models are my passion. My last two projects [from plans] were a Bf-110C and the Blackburn Beverley both 72″ span.

Having found this site I must admit to being a bit of fan now. Thanks. 🙂

Longshot, thanks for the photos I hadn’t seen before!:)

The point about cabin pressurisation has been raised many times in many places, as have all the other bones of contention mentioned throughout this thread.
Pressurising a slab sided fuselage would be a challenge, but it could be done or the slab side could be done away with, as it has been in later designs.
There are some similarities between Burnelli’s later designs and a couple of others here.
http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/Canada_Car/burnelli_designs.htm
It’s worth noting the differences in time scale!

In the 40s, pressurisation wasn’t an issue, so his aircraft would have been a viable workhorse at that time, probably good as a bomber also and able to carry much higher payloads.
It had no known faults at that time, in fact it was better than anything else in its class that was flying then.
The whole truth is that politics had everything to do with it not being produced, there is no other acceptable reason.
It was much easier, cheaper and quicker to build than anything else.

There are some interesting blended wing concepts on these pages, although some may think they look more like flying wings:
http://www.twitt.org/bldwing.htm
http://aero.stanford.edu/BWBProject.html

Burnelli series

The Cunliffe Owen OA-1 flown out to the Free French via Gibraltar, Malta ,Cairo, Khartoum to Bangui Central Africa (for De Gaulle) by Jim Mollison in June 1941…scanned from the ICARE magazine L.A.M article, and the Canadian Vickers/Canadair assembled CBY-3 at Cartierville 1945 scanned from the excellent Canadair history. Pickler/Milberry

As well as the lack of window seats ,doesn’t pressurization of the hull become more complex as it moves away from a near-enough spherical cross-section to a flatter section?