(Page 2 of 5)
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."


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