• About Air & Space
  • Email Updates
  • Member Services
  • Shop
  • Archive
airspacemag.com
  • Smithsonian Institution
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • goSmithsonian
  • Smithsonian magazine
  • Home
  • History of Flight
  • Flight Today
  • Military Aviation
  • Space Exploration
  • Photos & Videos
  • Subscribe
Thanks to the wonders of computer animation, Gerry Merrills theoretical Cloudster airplane takes an imaginary spin over Bryce Canyon. Thanks to the wonders of computer animation, Gerry Merrill's theoretical Cloudster airplane takes an imaginary spin over Bryce Canyon.
(Gerry Merrill)
  • Flight Today

Who Says a Jet Can't Be Cheap?

Gerry Merrill says he can build you one for $150,000.

  • By David Noland
  • Air & Space Magazine, March 01, 2008

Article Tools

  • Font
  • Share/Save/Bookmark Share
  • Email
  • Print
  • Digg Digg
  • Comments
  • StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • Reddit Reddit
    More from AirSpaceMag.com
    • The Elusive Dream

    Taped to the wall of Gerry Merrill's office in Phoenix, Arizona, is a three-view engineering blueprint of a sleek, two-seat personal jet. Finely curved, it sports a V-tail and a single fat engine nacelle atop the rear fuselage. Merrill, a wiry 73-year-old, tells me that, compared to current propeller-driven light airplanes (which he dismisses as "archaic crap"), the airplane on his wall will fly twice as fast, get better fuel mileage, and be 30 times quieter. His proposed family of jet-powered light airplanes, he says, will revolutionize private aviation, if only he can raise the $120 million it would take to get them certified by the Federal Aviation Administration and into production.

    The good news: "This is potentially a multi-billion-dollar business," he says. The bad: He can't break into the market.

    Since the 1940s, jet engines have revolutionized military, airline, and corporate flying. But somehow, the jet revolution never trickled down to personal flying. A practical, affordable, jet-powered light airplane for private pilots—a Cessna Skyhawk, say, without the propeller—has for decades been only a dream. Five- or six-seat, $1.5 million to $3 million very light jets (VLJs) are just now on the market, but the vision of a single- or double-seat jet with the price tag of a propeller aircraft—one-eighth the cost of a VLJ—has never become more real than three-view drawings taped to the office walls of dreamers everywhere.

    But Merrill stands apart from the rest; he probably knows more than anyone about small jet engines. A propulsion industry lifer who has worked on everything from torpedoes to funny-car dragsters, he's had a hand in the design of some 80 jet engines, ranging from the General Electric J79, used in U.S. fighters and bombers in the 1950s and 1960s, to the Teledyne CAE J402, used in today's air-to-surface and cruise missiles. But for more than 40 years, his abiding passion has been the idea of a small jet engine for light aircraft. He has spent most of that time bouncing back and forth between manufacturers, who weren't willing to bet the store on an engine that was not certified, and investors, who wouldn't put up the money for certification because the light-airplane market was too unpredictable.

    Conventional wisdom holds that jet engines burn too much fuel at low altitudes to be suitable for light aircraft. Jets, it's said, are efficient only above 30,000 feet or so, where light airplanes fear to tread. "That's bullshit," says Merrill flatly. Sure, every jet flying today gulps prodigious amounts of fuel when going low and slow. But that's because they were all designed to run high and fast. The secret, Merrill says, is to simply optimize the configuration of an engine's turbines, compressors, and fan for, say, 250 mph at 15,000 feet instead of 500 mph at 40,000 feet. "It's not rocket science," he says. "My engine technology and materials are basically 1960s. The breakthrough is conceptual."

    The results of optimizing a turbofan engine for low and slow are breathtaking—on paper, at least. According to Merrill's numbers, his theoretical 490-pound-thrust turbofan would, at 10,000 feet, push along his theoretical two-seat Cloudster airplane at 270 mph while burning 12 gallons of fuel per hour. That's 22 miles per gallon—about the same fuel efficiency that Cessna claims for its two-seat, propeller-driven 152, which flies not even half as fast. Climb to 23,000 feet, and the Cloudster will do 220 mph while burning seven gallons per hour. That's 31 miles per gallon. So much for the notion that jets at low altitude suck too much fuel, Merrill says.

    Two primary factors account for the amazing low-and-slow fuel efficiency of Merrill's turbofans. All have extremely high bypass ratios and very low fan pressure ratios. (The bypass ratio is the amount of the air that passes through the fan—known as "cold thrust"—compared with the amount that passes through the core, or combustion chamber —"hot thrust." Typically, the higher an engine's bypass ratio, the better its fuel efficiency.) Merrill's engine for the Cloudster on his wall has a bypass ratio of 19, which is five or six times that of the current crop of VLJ engines, and double that of the most advanced jetliner turbofans. Merrill calculates a specific fuel consumption of around 0.30 pound per hour per pound of thrust—an extraordinarily low number, and one that is 50 percent better than the current VLJ mainstay engines, the Williams FJ33 and the Pratt & Whitney PW600 series.

    But the real breakthrough in Merrill's engines is in their low fan pressure ratios. The ratio of pressures across the fan stage is a rough indicator of how much kinetic energy is wasted as air passes through the fan. "You've got to match the fan pressure ratio to the airspeed," says Merrill. "The lower the speed, the lower the FPR." Merrill is cagey about disclosing his engines' precise fan pressure ratio, but claims it is much lower than that on the VLJ engines.

    1 2 3 4 5

    Taped to the wall of Gerry Merrill's office in Phoenix, Arizona, is a three-view engineering blueprint of a sleek, two-seat personal jet. Finely curved, it sports a V-tail and a single fat engine nacelle atop the rear fuselage. Merrill, a wiry 73-year-old, tells me that, compared to current propeller-driven light airplanes (which he dismisses as "archaic crap"), the airplane on his wall will fly twice as fast, get better fuel mileage, and be 30 times quieter. His proposed family of jet-powered light airplanes, he says, will revolutionize private aviation, if only he can raise the $120 million it would take to get them certified by the Federal Aviation Administration and into production.

    The good news: "This is potentially a multi-billion-dollar business," he says. The bad: He can't break into the market.

    Since the 1940s, jet engines have revolutionized military, airline, and corporate flying. But somehow, the jet revolution never trickled down to personal flying. A practical, affordable, jet-powered light airplane for private pilots—a Cessna Skyhawk, say, without the propeller—has for decades been only a dream. Five- or six-seat, $1.5 million to $3 million very light jets (VLJs) are just now on the market, but the vision of a single- or double-seat jet with the price tag of a propeller aircraft—one-eighth the cost of a VLJ—has never become more real than three-view drawings taped to the office walls of dreamers everywhere.

    But Merrill stands apart from the rest; he probably knows more than anyone about small jet engines. A propulsion industry lifer who has worked on everything from torpedoes to funny-car dragsters, he's had a hand in the design of some 80 jet engines, ranging from the General Electric J79, used in U.S. fighters and bombers in the 1950s and 1960s, to the Teledyne CAE J402, used in today's air-to-surface and cruise missiles. But for more than 40 years, his abiding passion has been the idea of a small jet engine for light aircraft. He has spent most of that time bouncing back and forth between manufacturers, who weren't willing to bet the store on an engine that was not certified, and investors, who wouldn't put up the money for certification because the light-airplane market was too unpredictable.

    Conventional wisdom holds that jet engines burn too much fuel at low altitudes to be suitable for light aircraft. Jets, it's said, are efficient only above 30,000 feet or so, where light airplanes fear to tread. "That's bullshit," says Merrill flatly. Sure, every jet flying today gulps prodigious amounts of fuel when going low and slow. But that's because they were all designed to run high and fast. The secret, Merrill says, is to simply optimize the configuration of an engine's turbines, compressors, and fan for, say, 250 mph at 15,000 feet instead of 500 mph at 40,000 feet. "It's not rocket science," he says. "My engine technology and materials are basically 1960s. The breakthrough is conceptual."

    The results of optimizing a turbofan engine for low and slow are breathtaking—on paper, at least. According to Merrill's numbers, his theoretical 490-pound-thrust turbofan would, at 10,000 feet, push along his theoretical two-seat Cloudster airplane at 270 mph while burning 12 gallons of fuel per hour. That's 22 miles per gallon—about the same fuel efficiency that Cessna claims for its two-seat, propeller-driven 152, which flies not even half as fast. Climb to 23,000 feet, and the Cloudster will do 220 mph while burning seven gallons per hour. That's 31 miles per gallon. So much for the notion that jets at low altitude suck too much fuel, Merrill says.

    Two primary factors account for the amazing low-and-slow fuel efficiency of Merrill's turbofans. All have extremely high bypass ratios and very low fan pressure ratios. (The bypass ratio is the amount of the air that passes through the fan—known as "cold thrust"—compared with the amount that passes through the core, or combustion chamber —"hot thrust." Typically, the higher an engine's bypass ratio, the better its fuel efficiency.) Merrill's engine for the Cloudster on his wall has a bypass ratio of 19, which is five or six times that of the current crop of VLJ engines, and double that of the most advanced jetliner turbofans. Merrill calculates a specific fuel consumption of around 0.30 pound per hour per pound of thrust—an extraordinarily low number, and one that is 50 percent better than the current VLJ mainstay engines, the Williams FJ33 and the Pratt & Whitney PW600 series.

    But the real breakthrough in Merrill's engines is in their low fan pressure ratios. The ratio of pressures across the fan stage is a rough indicator of how much kinetic energy is wasted as air passes through the fan. "You've got to match the fan pressure ratio to the airspeed," says Merrill. "The lower the speed, the lower the FPR." Merrill is cagey about disclosing his engines' precise fan pressure ratio, but claims it is much lower than that on the VLJ engines.

    Merrill estimates the cost of a production engine at $44,000, about the same as the price of current piston engines of similar power. But the estimate is dependent on a production run in the thousands.

    The other aircraft in the Merrill line have similarly surprising numbers. A four-seater powered by an 800-pound-thrust engine could hit 280 mph, and get up to 22 mpg. That's better fuel economy than current four-seat prop airplanes, which fly 100 mph slower. Merrill figures such an airplane, once in large-scale production, would cost about $450,000, roughly the same as a current Cirrus SR22-GTS four-seater. He estimates that his single-seater, weighing just 320 pounds empty, would cruise at 220 mph, get 55 mpg, and cost just $150,000.

    Emmett Kraus, a retired manager of advanced design at Cessna, thinks Merrill's calculations are more than just wishful thinking. "He knows what works and what doesn't," says Kraus. "His program makes a lot of sense. I've studied his performance and pricing claims, and I think they're pretty reasonable. With all his hands-on experience in the industry, he's in a better position than most startups to accurately predict his prices. By far."

    His slick airplane designs notwithstanding, Merrill's engines alone would seem to have the potential to revolutionize personal flying. It's an industry axiom that engines beget airplanes, and history suggests that if Merrill can ever get the engine built, the airframe makers will come, in droves. For the past 35 years, every time the jet engine bar has been lowered, the smaller, cheaper jet that results quickly becomes the fastest-selling ever. In 1971, it was the Pratt & Whitney JT15D and the Cessna Citation. In 1993, it was the Williams FJ44 and the CitationJet. Today, it's the Pratt & Whitney 610 and the Eclipse 500.

    As a kid growing up in Michigan during World War II, Merrill was obsessed with aviation. At age 12, his design for a 50-passenger turboprop won a prize from Air Trails magazine. Mesmerized by a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star at a post-war airshow, he decided he'd rather help create fantastic jet airplanes than fly them.

    Merrill was hired by General Electric right out of high school, and went to work as a draftsman in the engine development department. At night he attended the University of Cincinnati, and by day he worked on the GOL1590, a prototype jet fighter engine that spawned the J79, which powered the F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom, B-58 Hustler, and A-5 Vigilante. Then came gigs at Chrysler, Curtiss-Wright, and Smith-Morris, a jet engine component supplier. In 1963, he took a job as a senior design engineer at Teledyne CAE, at the time the leading U.S. manufacturer of small jet engines. He and Tom Foster, a designer who'd been a student of jet propulsion pioneer Frank Whittle in England, became Teledyne's preliminary design department.

    It was here that Merrill first launched his quixotic quest to create a small turbofan for private airplanes—and where he first felt the sting of rejection and betrayal. In 1966, Foster and Merrill started work on a small general aviation jet engine. Their design for a 1,300-pound-thrust turbofan with a bypass ratio of 3:1 was a radical departure from the general aviation jet engines of the day—noisy, fuel-hungry turbojets with around 3,000 pounds of thrust. When Foster and Merrill first pitched their idea for a quiet, fuel-efficient turbofan to Cessna, the company was interested. But Cessna president Dwayne Wallace kept asking for more power, Merrill says, and the proposed Teledyne engine eventually grew to 2,100 pounds.

    But then, according to Richard A. Leyes' book, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines, "Wallace...called Bill Gwinn, president of United Aircraft Corp., explaining that Cessna wanted to build a small jet, and that they wanted a Pratt & Whitney engine on it. Gwinn then called Pratt & Whitney Canada president Thor Stevenson, and the next day P&WC engineers were designing their first fanjet engine."

    "Wallace wanted a screaming eagle logo on the nacelle," Merrill says bitterly, referring to the Pratt & Whitney logo. "So he passed on the specs of our engine to Pratt & Whitney." Whatever the case, in 1969 Pratt & Whitney delivered to Cessna the first JT15D, a 2,200-pound-thrust turbofan with a bypass ratio of about 3:1. Cessna used it to power its new Citation 500, which quickly became the world's best-selling business jet. The JT15D is still in production today.

    The pattern for Merrill's coming decades of frustration was beginning to take form: Good idea, but no cigar.

    In 1971, Merrill moved from Teledyne to Garrett AiResearch's advanced technology office. One of his projects was a refinement of the original Teledyne concept, a 1,300-pound-thrust turbofan. He offered it to Cessna for a downsized version of the Citation. Then-CEO Mal Harned turned down the idea, choosing instead to proceed with the ill-fated Conquest turboprop. Thirty-six years later, Cessna introduced the Mustang, a downsized version of the Citation with 1,300-pound-thrust Pratt & Whitney engines.

    Merrill left Garrett in 1984 to pursue his vision of a practical light-airplane turbofan on his own. For the next three years, under the auspices of his contract engineering firm, Advanced Propulsion Inc., Merrill peddled his ideas to virtually every general aviation airframe maker in North America. He got nowhere. The light airplane industry was then in a state of virtual collapse, and "they were too busy just trying to survive," Merrill says.

    Working with old industry friends, Merrill designed a family of small jet aircraft around his engine concept, ranging from a 260-mph single-seater weighing just 760 pounds to a 10-seat executive jet. He called the project Private Jets.

    In 1991, a friend introduced Merrill to Donald Douglas Jr., son of the Douglas Aircraft founder. Then 75 and retired from 20 years in the executive suite of the family business, the gruff, no-nonsense Douglas listened intently to Merrill's 45-minute pitch. "He got it immediately," recalls Merrill. A few weeks later, Douglas agreed to use his name and industry contacts to help Merrill raise money. The company was renamed Douglas Private Jets.

    Douglas set up meetings with a number of old buddies. There were some tantalizing negotiations, but once again, nothing came of them. Increasingly frustrated with the turndowns, Merrill and Douglas drew up a plan in 1993 to tap a new source: the U.S. government. That June, they gave a two-day briefing to engineers and managers at NASA's Lewis (since renamed Glenn) Research Center in Cleveland. Nice presentation, they were told, but no money available there. Undeterred, the pair went to Washington, D.C., and started knocking on doors. After two years of pleading that included audiences with NASA chief Dan Goldin and FAA boss David Hinson, Merrill and Douglas pulled off what appeared to be a stunning victory: Congress appropriated $37.25 million for a NASA research program based on their Private Jets concept.

    The research effort was assigned to the Lewis center and renamed the General Aviation Powerplant, or GAP, program. According to a NASA press release with hyperbole matching that of the flip charts Merrill showed potential investors, GAP's goal was to "reduce the cost of small turbine engines by a factor of 10 and revolutionize the concept of personal air transportation." Just one catch: GAP was to be opened up to bids from the industry. Suddenly Merrill was going up against the big boys again. And there was another problem: Goldin's philosophy that the agency should take care of its "customers"—the established engine manufacturers that it had been working with for years.

    Merrill tried to partner with several manufacturers, but in the end, Douglas Private Jets went it alone. Williams International won the GAP contract with its FJX2, a cutting-edge turbofan that worked fine in the test cell but flopped when the company tried to turn it into an engine for the Eclipse 500. It has since disappeared (see "The Little Engine That Couldn't," Oct./Nov. 2005).

    "NASA stabbed us in the back," says Merrill. "Instead of an engine for a 200-knot, 20,000-foot lightplane like we proposed, they ended up with an engine for a small business jet that cruised at 41,000 feet. Even if it had worked, it wouldn't have revolutionized a damn thing."

    Sour grapes? NASA's Leo Burkhardt, the GAP program manager, confirms Merrill's role in getting the GAP ball rolling. "Gerry's advocacy opened our eyes to the potential of small turbofans," he says. "Gerry made it happen. I give him total credit for that." Burkhardt says he considered Merrill's proposal technically feasible but felt that Williams' design was more advanced. "Of course it was more advanced," retorts Merrill. "That's why it failed. The whole point of our engine was that it was all proven technology, but optimized for the low-and-slow regime."

    Don Douglas died in 2004, and Merrill has carried on with occasional help from Douglas' younger brother Jim and other industry friends. He still gives presentations now and then at the Experimental Aircraft Association's annual fly-in at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and is currently targeting a potential investor in the Persian Gulf. Although Merrill's enthusiasm for his crusade shows no signs of spooling down, he seems resigned to his 40 years of failure. "People get interested, but everywhere you turn, the capital always seems to be committed to other projects," he says. "To people with money, we're just bothersome pissants."

    Bruce Holmes, the cerebral former NASA general aviation soothsayer, puts it a bit more delicately. "It comes down to the investment culture these days," he says. "Going from slow little planes to fast little planes really changes the paradigm. That's too unpredictable for most investors."

    That's because most investors are cautious by nature, says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst for the Teal Group, an aerospace investment consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia. "Investors are willing to underwrite incremental improvements, but not great leaps forward like Merrill's," he says. "The [market is] too unpredictable, and that scares them off. You need slam-dunk numbers to attract money, and investors don't see that kind of potential in the lightplane market. They want to see numbers like the bizjet market, which has more than quadrupled in the past decade."

    Another problem for Merrill, Aboulafia says, is that "he's a small startup company. The history of this business is that the big guy wins. An investor would be very leery of putting money into a small company with a new engine technology like this, only to watch Pratt & Whitney come along and take over the market."

    Even the newer, more visionary aviation companies seem wary. "It's ingrained in our core, our company culture, that the engine has to be there, certified and proven," says Mike Van Staagen, vice president of advanced development for Cirrus Design. Cirrus recently unveiled a mockup of a single-engine personal jet, but it will use a standard high-and-fast Williams FJ33 engine. "We closed the door on Merrill because it was just too big a leap. To hinge the entire company on an unproven engine is just something we're not willing to do."

    With their V-tails and top-mounted single nacelles, both the Cirrus mockup and Eclipse Aviation's new single-engine, four-seat Concept Jet, introduced with much fanfare at last year's Oshkosh show, look to be straight out of the Merrill playbook. Underneath the skin, though, the new Eclipse is still a 400-mph, 41,000-foot, million-dollar machine powered by a high-and-fast turbofan. Merrill's low-and-slow market niche remains wide open, waiting to be filled by somebody with enough money and vision.


     
    Comments

    Seems like a few dollars from each member of the EAA could get this off the ground.

    Posted by Robert Graham on March 20,2008 | 04:24PM

    Warren Buffett bought net jets after he looked at it.Like Donald Douglas Jr. he got it immediately.Berkshire-Hathaway's stock value has increased 10,000 % since it went public in 1960's.Maybe he would see the opportunity and benefits to aviation and his stock holders to come up with the 120M Gerry needs to make it happen.I saw the article in air and space. Respectfully submitted Pat Simmons

    Posted by patrick simmons on March 20,2008 | 09:20PM

    How about teaming up with James Dyson, of vacuum cleaner fame? Lesser known, Dyson's firm has also developed the Airblade, an equally revolutionary hand dryer. He certainly seems to know his way around the motion of air. Industries have been built on more obscure alliances.

    Posted by Tracy Kreckman on April 9,2008 | 12:09PM

    It's difficult to understand why someone would not either put up the money, or at least spearhead the drive to get the design proven

    Posted by Ted M Sharpe on April 9,2008 | 02:59PM

    I, have had the idea that by replacing the conventional fuel control of a gas turban engine with a computer controlled fuel injection system it would cut the cost substantially for a small engine.

    Posted by G. Phillips on April 13,2008 | 04:46AM

    What will be the cost of a six seated flight.Pl mail models with photograph and price.Needs for a resort project. Sangram

    Posted by SANGRAM on April 23,2008 | 10:22PM

    I realize I am late to the discussion, but it seems to me the problem here is Mr. Merrill is not radical enough. The market for inexpensive turbine power lies in power generation, not propulsion. The idea being to provide low-cost home and industrial power generation using proven turbine technology, which by it's very nature is "flex-fuel." That market is immense, world-wide and ripe for new products. A similar small low cost power generating turbine could be used to power a turbo-prop which would replace the common, antiquated piston power in small private aircraft. This eliminates the need for new airframes. The engine is simply adapted to current ones. What is most shocking is the conservatism of the aircraft industry and the market. As much as 20 years ago, automobile manufacturer Porsche tried to market a "Flugmotor" based on it's very well proven aircooled flat six. It had numerous advantages to the then current Lycoming, was essentially a bolt-in and yet, the project sunk without a trace. One can only imagine the uphill climb a new turbine engine would have if Porsche couldn't sell their superior piston engine to the same market.

    Posted by Oski Eno on May 13,2008 | 10:30AM

    For much less than $120 million, Mr. Merrill could build prototypes of his engine. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a functioning prototype is priceless. In the article Mr. Merrill is quoted as saying “My engine technology and materials are basically 1960s.” A quality modern machine shop could easily fabricate the parts. After ground testing, the engine could be installed in a modified Rutan Long EZ for flight testing. Good luck Mr. Merrill.

    Posted by David Zehender on June 2,2008 | 04:22PM

    I saw a forum presentation by Gerry Merrill at Oshkosh a few years ago and was just mesmerized ! The possibilities ! I remember thinking "Here is a guy with the imagination of a Burt Rutan or a Roy LoPresti." Ah, but for money....

    Posted by Craig Lamison on August 10,2008 | 09:16PM

    Does anyone know how to get in touch with Gerry? I may have some investors in Asia that would be interested in producing his engine.

    Posted by Jim Ryan on September 8,2008 | 01:27AM

    Mr. Ryan, I'm his son. It's easy to map search on the web. But here it is anyway. Advanced Propulsion Inc. 254 W Baseline Rd # 105 Tempe, AZ‎ (480) 829-1099 Mike

    Posted by Michael Merrill on October 31,2008 | 02:01PM

    for $150 grand to have a jet for that price would be awesome

    Posted by carmine.p on January 3,2009 | 09:47AM

    Like Tucker with the Torpedo or Custer with the Channelwing, or Northrop with the Flying Wing, or (I forgot the name) with the flying horseshoe designs, the big industry doesn't want new technology that could threaten their position in the market, so they lock up funding, buy politicians, etc. Even if Mr. Merrill can get an engine built and business started, the FAA requires a type rating for all jets, with expensive training. As a result, there would be fewer pilots able to buy an aircraft of this type. Next in line of obstacles would be insurance companies. Most require an enormous hour and experience requirement before they will insure a pilot of a jet. Even a low and slow jet would be subjected to ridiculous restrictions by these companies until it can be proven to be a low risk product. I applaud the efforts and wish the circumstance were different, but don't really see a hole in the glass ceiling.

    Posted by Danny Bilyeu on January 29,2009 | 08:30AM

    30/05/09 Dear Mr. Merrill, greetings from Belfast ,N.Ireland,just a thought for you to muse on, instead of a gas guzzling jet why not build a "DUCTED FAN"aircraft with the engine & 4 stage fan enclosed within the fuselage, there is no reason why it could not work perfectly, the radio controlled models are a dream to fly & provided you used a high performance high revving engine like the Mooney aircraft engines you could make it work, the Fan units could add as much as 25-30%to the speed, & the overall speed could be the equivelant or faster than a jet& a lot more economical & easier to insure, i know this has been tried a few times before but the reason it did not work was because the wrong engines were used the fans need to be high revving to produce the thrust so you need a high revving sport type engine to do this , this is just a thought , let me know what you think, Regards ....Tom

    Posted by tom pritchard on May 30,2009 | 03:38AM

    Post a Comment


    Name: (required)

    Email: (required)

    Comment:



    Advertisement


    Most Popular Video

    • Newest
    • Most Viewed

    Race TV

    The 2009 Reno Air Races were the first to be broadcast live.

    Jetting Through the Grand Canyon

    Jetting Through the Grand Canyon

    An RAF pilot takes his T-33 on a joyride in 1959.

    Space Station Fly-Around

    Space Station Fly-Around

    Take a narrated tour of the station with the same animation astronauts use in training.

    Armstrongs Close Call

    Armstrong’s Close Call

    A fiery bailout while training to land on the moon.

    Ares I-X Launch

    NASA tests a prototype of its new Ares 1 crew launcher.

    Jetting Through the Grand Canyon

    Jetting Through the Grand Canyon

    An RAF pilot takes his T-33 on a joyride in 1959.

    PTQ: Put Together Quickly

    PTQ: Put Together Quickly

    Watch Boeing technicians repair an airliner—in two minutes.

    Space Station Fly-Around

    Space Station Fly-Around

    Take a narrated tour of the station with the same animation astronauts use in training.

    Armstrongs Close Call

    Armstrong’s Close Call

    A fiery bailout while training to land on the moon.

    Wright B Over Manhattan, 1912

    Wright B Over Manhattan, 1912

    In the winter of 1912, Frank Coffyn filmed the first silent motion pictures of New York ever taken from an airplane.

    Most Popular

    • Viewed
    • Emailed
    • Commented
    1. Space Shuttle Jr.
    2. Devils’ Advocates
    3. The First Photo From Space
    4. A&S Interview: Yang Guoxiang
    5. Slim and Bud
    6. The Do-Everything Bomber
    7. B-36: Bomber at the Crossroads
    8. Reno Wrap-up
    9. Sightings: Hazy's Hits
    10. Aircraft That Changed the World
    1. Slim and Bud
    2. Space Shuttle Jr.
    3. A&S Interview: Yang Guoxiang
    4. Legends of Vietnam: Super Tweet
    5. Out in the Breezy
    6. Are aft-facing airplane seats safer?
    7. Humans vs. Robots
    8. Welcome to Cyberairspace
    9. Airliner Repair, 24/7
    10. What determines an airplane’s lifespan?
    1. Amelia's Astronaut Connection
    2. Slim and Bud
    3. What determines an airplane’s lifespan?
    4. Over the No-Fly Zone
    5. How Things Work: Electromagnetic Catapults
    6. Top NASA Photos of All Time
    7. B-36: Bomber at the Crossroads
    8. Legends of Vietnam: Super Tweet
    9. Space Shuttle Jr.
    10. Lake Murray's Mitchell

    Advertisement

    Marketplace

    SmithsonianStore

    Night at the Museum Adult Collage Tee
    Item no: 28206

    Window Shopping

    Gifts, Gadgets and Great Finds!

    Travel & Adventure

    A Family Weekend in Washington, D.C.: Featuring "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian"

    Spend a fun-filled weekend with your family discovering the magic of the new feature film, "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" (Jul. 24 - 26, 2009)

    In the Magazine

    January 2010

    • Thanks For the Memories
    • Space Shuttle Jr.
    • The Big Race of 1910
    • The Do-Everything Bomber
    • Legends of Vietnam: Super Tweet
    • Ode on a Canadian Warbird

    View Table of Contents »

    Snapshot

    Nice Save

    This camera's no point-and-shoot. Now, come see it for yourself.

    Reader Scrapbook

    Send In Your Photos

    Check out our scrapbook of readers' aviation and space pictures. Then add your own.

    Need to Know

    What determines an airplane’s lifespan?

    Some keep flying for decades, while others end up on the scrap heap.

    • Smithsonian Store
    • Smithsonian Journeys

    In the Cockpit: Inside 50 History-Making Aircraft

    Item No. 10304

    Astronomy in Hawaii

    Gaze at the stars and learn about the Universe from the beautiful island of Hawaii (Apr 29 - May 6, 2010)



    View full archiveRecent Issues


    • Jan 2010

    • In his portrait of the storied racer Rare Bear and its crew, photographer Tyson Rininger captures the sense of anticipation that surrounds air races. “Something’s coming,” this quiet night scene seems to suggest. “Tomorrow, it’s win or lose.”
      Nov 2009


    • Sep 2009

    Newsletter

    Sign up for regular email updates from Air & Space magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

    Subscribe Now

    About Us

    Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine has been delighting aerospace enthusiasts with the best writing about their favorite subject since April 1986. As an adjunct of the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Air & Space matches the grand scope of the Museum, encompassing every era of aviation and space exploration. With stories that range from the Wright Brothers to the design of NASA's next lunar lander, Air & Space emphasizes the human stories as well as the technology of aviation and spaceflight.

    Explore our Brands

    • goSmithsonian.com
    • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
    • Smithsonian Institution
    • Smithsonian Catalogue
    • Smithsonian Journeys
    • Smithsonian Channel
    • Site Map
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright
    • About Air & Space
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising
    • Reader Panel
    • Subscribe
    • RSS

    Smithsonian Institution

    Produced by Clickability