Thanks for your thoughts JDK.
Let me first of all advise everyone here that I’m not trying to sell anything, I’m a retired car mechanic with a few other skills under my workbelt.
I’ve been an aeronut since the age of 4, when I wanted to fly Spitfires and fight the enemy, who were flying over our house in those days.
I’m also a scale modeller, I’ve drawn up, built and flown my designs over the years.

I only stumbled on Burnelli’s aircraft recently, although I do remember the ‘Clyde Clipper’ that isn’t, from my childhood days.

The concept has captured my imagination, but I’m trying to wade through the conspiracy, gossip, partisan ideas and fantasies that seem to surround this design.

One thing stands out as a racing certainty, there was a very good reason why Burnelli aircraft were not built in the 40s and used by the military and it certainly had nothing to do with their feasibility, so maybe it was political?

‘Douglas recently’? Even I’m aware Douglas aren’t doing anything these days.

😀 So am I, but this story began 80 years ago and I’m getting on myself, so my idea of ‘recently’ may be subtly different to yours.;)

What’s the cruise speed of these lifting wing design? Can they compete on seat-mile costs?

I believe the lifting body design could achieve a suitable cruising speed economically.
“Lifting-fuselage/wing aircraft having low induced drag.”
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5813628.html

I used the word ‘saga’ in the title of this thread for a good reason, it has been discussed and argued about continually, since the idea was scrapped in the early 40s.
Here are some interesting words written by another modeller:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9124621&postcount=8

It’s quite understandable that many people are still dubious, I don’t blame them, it’s normal to be negative, my wife does it all the time.
I do find it sad to be dubious about something that wasn’t given a reasonable chance to prove itself and is even now being copied, albeit not for passenger transport, so far.

Edited to include a fascinating article on the modern possibilities of this design:
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Burnelli.htm

I’m no huge fan of FDR…but you’re crazy to suggest that it’s his fault.
I’m not familiar with what you’re suggesting..why do you think is it his fault that worldwide aeronautics community didn’t leap on the the Burnelli bandwagon?

Simply put…if the design were so good, why didn’t someone else champion it?
Why not blame Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle, Franco…or better yet, Boeing, de Havilland, the Soviet design bureaus, Dassault, the former Junkers team in East Germany, Kurt Tank in South America, the Popular Flying Association, monty Python’s Flying Circus…? There are lots of possible suspects.

That is probably the easiest of points to explain.

Burnelli’s design was so impressive that a contract was drawn up and was ready to be signed by president
Roosevelt until Burnelli mentioned the wrong person as his backer, Arthur Pew, (Republican) supporter
of Wendell Willkie, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (Democrat) opposition in the 1940 election.
It is written that, “Roosevelt threw his pen across the room, and tore up the contract.”

Nuff said.

Trying not to let this thread go too far off topic about whether or not a particular Burnelli design was made where, when, with what name, prefix or modifications, I’d like to stick to my original point if possible.

Are we all the poorer for not having Burnelli’s designs to fly in and have many lives been lost that could have been saved?

The whole principal of ESTOL alone, tells me that an accident, such as the last one at Madrid and myriad others could have been avoided.

History has already been made since that era and we don’t have ESTOL passenger aircraft flying around, instead, we have tubes with wings attached.

You might have to expand on the ‘more lives could have been saved’ bit for us?

That isn’t too difficult, because as we all know, most crashes causing loss of life happen during take off and landing. Burnelli’s designs were ESTOL, plus the fuel cells were sighted away from the safety cell passenger compartment. The wings were designed to break off on impact and the engines did their own thing.

My only knowledge on the subject is the Cunliffe Owen licenced version of the UB-14, the OA1.

There were a few others and a good starting point is here:
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono1.htm

The Burnelli story is partly outlined here:
http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/Canada_Car/ccf_part_3_CBY3.htm