• Smithsonian
    Institution
  • Smithsonian
    Journeys
  • Smithsonian
    Store
  • Smithsonian
    Channel
  • goSmithsonian
    Visitors Guide
  • Smithsonian
    magazine

AirSpaceMag.com

  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • History of Flight
  • Flight Today
  • Military Aviation
  • Space Exploration
  • Need to Know
  • How Things Work
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Blogs
  • Flight Today

Who Says a Jet Can't Be Cheap?

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

| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email | More
  • By David Noland
  • Air & Space magazine, March 2008
View Full Image »
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

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.

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.


Single Page 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email | More
 
Comments (27)

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

Great story, and what a great concept. I'm quite surprised that nobody had been willing to take the leap over the past 40 years. If Merrill could get this off the ground, imagine how it could revolutionize the world we live in. Your talking about a jet, that technical professionals could use themselves to fly regionally. Imagine IT professionals, and service technicians flying from Seattle to SF in the morning, commissioning the server and being back home in time for a late dinner. The company wouldn't need to pay per diem, over night hotel stay, etc. every MId level corporate manager and up would now have a genuine reason to fly themselves. Screw business class, the flexibility of going to that trade show in Las Vegas, and quickly duckkng out for a lunch meeting in LA.
I would personally be able to stop at several client sites, a handful of projects my company is currently working on and a few of my offices all on a cruise home from Southern California to Seattle. I don't think I'd ever be home. I would be on the road all the time.!

What this project needs is for Mr. Merrill to meet with Paul Allen (Microsoft Co-Founder). Paul Allen has a passion for making these things reality, and $250m is an amount that Paul Allen could risk without harm. The worst case scenario with this is that its slow to start and the specs are off by 25%... It would still be viable and wouldn't cost the investor. The upside is a sweeping revolution so successful that its like founding another Microsoft.
I sure hope Mr. Merrill connects with a home run while he still has a a hitch in his giddup.

Good Luck Gerry Merrill! You've got one of your first customers in me... Sign me up for the 4 seat version :)

Posted by Ken Rhule on May 23,2013 | 05:53 AM

Post a Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.



Advertisement


Most Popular

  • Viewed
  • Emailed
  • Commented
  • Topics
  1. Where Have All the Shuttle Engineers Gone?
  2. Panthers At Sea
  3. Burt Rutan's Favorite Ride
  4. The Navy Gets a Panther
  5. Area 51: Origins
  6. The Soplata Airplane Sanctuary
  7. Alaska and the Airplane
  8. The Pilots of Mount McKinley
  9. The Plane With No Name
  10. NASA Art on Tour
  1. Where Have All the Shuttle Engineers Gone?
  2. The Galileo Project
  3. The Soplata Airplane Sanctuary
  4. When Pigs Could Fly
  1. Refueling Angel Thunder
  2. The Rocket Ships
  3. Wings & Waves Airshow
  4. Glacier Girl
  5. Leesburg Air Show
  6. Hush Kits
  7. Ravens of Long Tieng
  8. A Family Affair
  9. The Mystery of the Lost Clipper
  10. Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?
  1. Fighters
  2. Vietnam War
  3. Bombers
  4. 21st Century Aviation
  5. Aerospace Inventions
  6. 20th Century Aviation
  7. Cold War Era
  8. Experimental Aircraft
  9. Military Aviators
  10. Aerospace Technology
  11. Golden Age of Flight

View All Most Popular »

Advertisement


Follow Us

Air & Space Magazine
@airspacemag
Follow Air & Space Magazine on Twitter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian.com, including daily newsletters and special offers.

Popular Videos

  • Newest
  • Most Viewed

Flightseeing on Mount McKinley

(01:46)

A New Way to Navigate

(02:01)

X-47B Carrier Launch

(01:25)

SpaceShipTwo Fires Up

(02:58)

View All Newest Videos »

The Mach-2 Bomber That Never Was

(01:21)

SpaceShipTwo Fires Up

(02:58)

X-47B Carrier Launch

(01:25)

How to Bag an Asteroid

(03:52)

View All Videos »

In the Magazine

July 2013

  • Where Have All the Shuttle Engineers Gone?
  • Panthers At Sea
  • Earth-Like Planets Could be Right Next Door
  • Alaska and the Airplane
  • The Pilots of Mount McKinley

View Table of Contents »

Snapshot

There's No Upside-Down

An astronaut takes a walk out in space last week.

Reader Scrapbook

Discovery's Tail-Cone Fitting

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


Smithsonian Store

In the Cockpit and In the Cockpit II

Current and retired curators from our National Air and Space Museum contribute the insightful text and striking images... $48.99

Smithsonian Journeys

Smithsonian at Chautauqua: The Elegant Universe

Join us in western New York and explore the mysteries of the cosmos with experts (Jun 22 - 29, 2013)




View full archiveRecent Issues


  • Jul 2013


  • May 2013


  • Mar 2013

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 Student Travel
  • Smithsonian Catalogue
  • Smithsonian Journeys
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • About Air & Space
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Topics
  • Member Services
  • Copyright
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Ad Choices

Smithsonian Institution