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 2008
Thanks to the wonders of computer animation, Gerry Merrill's theoretical Cloudster airplane takes an imaginary spin over Bryce Canyon.
Gerry Merrill
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.





Comments (25)
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 | 07:24 PM
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 | 12:20 AM
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 | 03:09 PM
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 | 05:59 PM
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 | 07:46 AM
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 | 01:22 AM
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 | 01:30 PM
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 | 07:22 PM
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 | 12:16 AM
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 | 04:27 AM
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 | 05:01 PM
for $150 grand to have a jet for that price would be awesome
Posted by carmine.p on January 3,2009 | 12:47 PM
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 | 11:30 AM
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 | 06:38 AM
beats the puffin!
Posted by Laurel on January 24,2010 | 11:42 AM
Just another fantasy salesman, aviation is full of them. I work on some of the most advanced engines in the world and can tell you now that there is no way you can get .300 fuel consumption out of his engine at that altitude. There are certain limitations in turbofans, and the exotic alloys to enable the extremely high turbine temps just don't exist to acheive that.
If it was so inexpensive to build and a run of the mill machine shop could do it, it would be done already. Building jet engines is extremely expensive and time consuming, everything is operating at the limit of materials temperature-wise, and stress-wise. Just the materials cost are mind-boggling. The precision required to scale down an engine that small with that high of a bypass-ratio is fantastical. Thousands of engineering man-hours and test rigs and millions of dollars in developement costs. THEN you have to certify it!!!
No one is trying to conspire against Mr Merril, he's just not living in the real world, and he sure doesn't sound like he has a background in jet engine design. I'd like to see his combustor concept for the engine. Just a pipe-dream. Like the first poster said, Good Luck!!
Posted by EngineTech on September 19,2010 | 10:02 AM
@EngineTech, you see that is the EXACT type of thinking that prevents innovation. Just because YOU haven't seen something done, built, created or in production doesn't mean that it isn't possible or can't be built. Think of those who said the same thing about flying in the first place? Don't you remember your history lessons? The idea that a man (or woman) could fly through the air was preposterous once upon a time. Now just look at us! I think Mr. Merril is on to something and I hope he gets his jet built. As a beginning pilot, I'm excited at the very notion of such a plane making it to market.
The problem is that the aircraft industry is conservative because people don't like crashes. They think that if it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Posted by Sara on December 2,2010 | 05:43 AM
i love the idea. i am nigerian university mechanical engineering student aspiring to become a great aeronautical engineer. therefore i believe it can be done.i am currently working on building a two seaters propeller driven plane. if you have any idea or advise to help, please contact me. +2348134670520 and lawrenceochoga@yahoo.com
Posted by ochoga lawrence on March 28,2011 | 08:45 AM
I am a commercial pilot. Flying is a hobby, but for $150K I would surely buy one.
Sid
Posted by Sid on June 7,2011 | 06:20 AM
Man, this could be the next big thing in Aviation. It only goes 220 mph, but it's WAY more efficient than driving a car, and the gas prices per gallon are close, too. And only 150 grand! That's less than the prop planes that go the same speed and guzzle 15 gallons per hour!
@EngineTech-You have no sense of innovation if you think that way.
Posted by Mr. Aviation on August 27,2011 | 06:10 AM
why not just build one such a plane as a proof of concept.
100% if it works as predicted getting the 120 or 150 Million dollars for financing it would not be a problem.
Posted by on October 2,2011 | 07:20 AM
Not to sound like critic or anything but a turboprop already costs around $500,000 (for the small ones). And this is a turbofan. So it will definitely cost a lot more than just $150,000. Probably more like around $1,000,000.
Posted by Spencer Ching on January 29,2012 | 12:03 AM
I love the idea. I think there are many mid size companies such as mine that would really benefit from light air craft like this.
At present I can't seem to find a jet fuel air craft for my employees to commute in the vast land of western Australia. We have contracts all over western Australia with no airline service to commute; therefore we have to drive, which takes a considerable amount of time-- up to 8 hours each way for a 2 hour job to complete, (waste of time).
It would not be viable to spend $1 to $1.5 million on slightly larger aircraft. If you have any suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by Brett Johnston on September 20,2012 | 02:32 PM
Embraer Phenom 100 is the most advanced jet I have ever been in for the price, fit and finish are superior and the avionics are all state of the art. It is a bit more money then you are all talking about but it has a proven track record and would pay for itself on those long Australian trips. Its just an impressive plane and I have not seen any real problem with it.
Posted by Steve Blinder on January 31,2013 | 02:58 AM
I just stumbled across this mini jet ...and I like it !
There is already PBS JT-100 that costs exactly 44 000 usd.
You need 2 of them...but your engine would be great to replace them both in my design.
More at http://max3fan.blogspot.com
Posted by Juke Takamaa on February 22,2013 | 03:09 AM