View PDF Version

PAUL MOLLER - MOLLER INTERNATIONAL INC (MLER)
CEO Interview - published 03/28/2005

DOCUMENT # ABJ603

PAUL MOLLER is Chairman of the Board of Moller International Inc. In
1972 Dr. Moller founded Supertrapp Industries and was Chief Executive
Officer as Supertrapp became the most recognized international name in
high-performance engine silencing systems. Supertrapp Industries was
sold in 1988. In 1983 he founded Moller International to develop powered
lift aircraft. Dr. Moller has served as the company's President since
its formation. Under Dr. Moller's direction, Moller International
completed contracts with NASA, NOSC, DARPA, NRL, Harry Diamond Labs,
Hughes Aircraft Company, California Department of Transportation and the
U.S. Army, Navy and Air force. These contracts included the development
and deployment of numerous unmanned aerial vehicles and Wankel-based
engines. Dr. Moller has received 43 patents including the first US
patent on a fundamentally new form of powered lift aircraft. He is a
world renowned feature lecturer and guest speaker on next-generation
transportation systems. He holds a Master's degree in Engineering and
PhD from McGill University. Dr. Moller was a professor of Mechanical and
Aeronautical Engineering at the University of California, Davis, from
1963 to 1975, where he developed the Aeronautical Engineering program. 

sector - aerospace/defense

TWST: We would like to begin with a brief historical sketch of the
company and a picture of the things you are doing at the present time.


Dr. Moller: Moller International was formed in 1983, and incorporated at
that time to develop vertical takeoff and landing technology. It could
be applied either to UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) or, at some point,
to create a replacement for the automobile. The company has had a number
of government contracts over the years. We have built unmanned vehicles
for the army, navy, air force and California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) for bridge inspection. We have flown a number
of these manned vehicles for application as a personal transport,
including an earlier version flown in 1989 before the international
press. That particular aircraft flew over 200 times.  more recently we
have been developing a four-passenger vehicle called a Skycar volantor,
which I have tested unmanned and plan to test this summer in a manned
version. The company itself is a relatively small technology-driven
company, but it is forming alliances with a number of larger
organizations which are better positioned to move this technology into
the marketplace. We will continue to be a technology developer, as we
have in the past and expect to continue generating numerous patents. In
some cases we license our technology; in others we enter joint ventures
as we have done recently with Boeing Rocketdyne for engine/generator
production.

TWST: When you tested the vehicle in its unmanned version, how well did
it fly?


Dr. Moller: The various aircraft we develop are usually designed for the
customers' goals. In the case of Caltrans, that was a vehicle that could
go up with a camera and inspect bridges. In the case of the air force,
it was a vehicle that was designed to go out and assess nuclear damage
following a nuclear attack where they didn't want to send people in. In
the army's case, it was a commander's observation vehicle, something
that could be carried on a tank and used in the field to look over the
next hill to see if an enemy tank was there prior to actually bridging
the hill. All of these were demonstrated, and they were all successful.
In fact, many of them are still in use in those applications. Again, we
are technology driven, so we will be partnering with other companies to
put those vehicles into volume production.

TWST: As you go forward, which will loom larger in your picture, the
unmanned vehicle used by the military or the four-man manned vehicle?


Dr. Moller: In the immediate future, certainly the unmanned simply
because we have an easy entree into the market with that technology.
There are many places where they are needed right now, such as Iraq and
in many civilian applications. You don't have any of the flying
complexity and danger to the individual, so we can test much of the
technology and the electronic stabilization systems that make the Skycar
easy to fly. We can do all of that without risking anybody's life, so
that is a logical approach. Prior to putting a man on board I would say
for the next three to five years, unmanned applications of our vehicles,
as well as the powerplants that we have developed will become a very
attractive product for much of the marketplace and will dominant our
activity. The Skycar as a passenger carrying vehicle, one that you and I
might access at some point, is probably five to 10 years away before it
reaches high volume production.

TWST: Either with the unmanned or with the Skycar, can you describe what
takes place?


Dr. Moller: The Skycar itself is a hybrid vehicle in the sense that it
is really a combination car, helicopter and airplane. It can fold to an
8.5-foot width, so you can drive it on the street. I wouldn't call it a
racecar or anything like that; it is a mobile vehicle that you can drive
at city speeds to a vertiport ' currently called a heliport. In the
fairly near future, you will see a few Skycars in and around the city.
Someday you will be able to drive to the vertiport  where the Skycar
would be coded into an airway network and could then be operated without
your input. You would be a passenger reading, playing computer games, or
sleeping while you are taken from point A to point B on an airway guide
network. That airway guide network is quite advanced, much more than the
average person realizes, and within five years it will be pretty much
complete. So we will then have the highway in the sky system. We have
the vehicle technology now, and that vehicle will be able to be safely
in people's hands because of this airway network's existence within the
next five years. That is really the time frame I think when you are
going to start seeing a number of Skycars coming into everyday use.

TWST: I have the impression that the Skycar eventually will not be
overwhelmingly expensive.


Dr. Moller: Various experts have examined the Skycar in detail,
companies like Boeing, and nothing about it is expensive. We have
replaced components that traditionally are quite expensive with computer
technology, including the flaps, variable pitch fans, ailerons, etc.
These are some of the things that make airplanes expensive to build and
maintain. Admittedly, we have quite a few computers on board, but
computers are now fairly inexpensive. Therefore we are able to provide
great redundancy; if one computer fails, another takes over, and if that
fails another takes over, so you don't have to worry that it might fail
like your typical desktop computer. It is a flying computer, and
inexpensive computer technology means the Skycar itself can be quite
inexpensive. The other critical component, of course, is the engine,
which we have spent enormous time and money developing. It is
inexpensive, powerful, light and reliable and as a result has generated
a huge potential as a spinoff product.

TWST: Can you tell us something about the guide network? How far
advanced is it, and what kind of vehicle will be allowed to work through
with it?


Dr. Moller: The network is rapidly going into place and is for use by
all types of aircraft. Commercial airlines use is initially its number
one priority, and then it will be flights to and from small airports by
charter flights so that they can use all these thousands of local
airports. Today these convenient airports really can't be used
effectively because it would be too dangerous if they were used in large
numbers within our marginally controlled airspace. This developing
airway network is most essential for vehicles like ours, which can be
totally automated. This network is primarily dependent upon GPS. There
are three world-wide GPS networks ' two in place and one going in place
with the GPS launched by the US, the GLONASS by Russia, and the Galileo
in development in Europe. So you have the triple redundancy, which is
always a requirement. Then you have support systems called WAAS and
LAAS, wide area augmentation system, and local area augmentation system
that allow you to know where every vehicle is within inches. WAAS is
already in place and LAAS is going into place. In fact, WAAS has worked
so well that the FAA feels that they can reduce the need for LAAS. In
any case, it really gives you the ultimate protection to you know that
central control knows precisely where every commercial airliner, general
aviation aircraft and Skycar commuter is located and able to be
precisely controlled as well.

TWST: Are accident and fatality rates with general aviation much higher
than commercial aviation?


Dr. Moller: They are significantly higher, and that reflects not so much
reliability of the light planes (that is a small factor), but it is more
of a fact that these airplanes are not easy to fly. Weather is usually
the thing that gets them into trouble. When you have an automated
system, of course that removes the danger created by inexperienced
individuals. Inexperience can simply mean you don't have the thousands
of hours of training that make you an expert. More important, if
something goes wrong with the Skycar, you have vertical landing
capability; you don't have to find an airport. It is automatically
flying IFR (instrument flight rules) and the aircraft is flying itself.
You don't depend on personal skill to find your way out of a fog bank,
and since you can land vertically anywhere, you have an infinite number
of landing sites. It is quite a different world from what we know today.
Aviation is dangerous for a number of reasons, mostly because it is
relatively uncontrolled; quite frankly, when you are up in the air
today, you are advised to look around constantly to see if somebody is
coming in your direction.

TWST: Can you visualize a time when there will be lots of Skycars up
there being very useful and practical?


Dr. Moller: I think it is absolutely inevitable. I am not going to say
that it needs to be Skycar; the technology is coming whether my company
does it or not, but certainly the Skycar or something like that is
emerging. We call them volantors as a generic term, Skycar being our
particular form of a volantor. They are called powered-lift aircraft by
the FAA. It is so inevitable that the FAA has already generated a
private pilot's license called a powered lift pilot's license. We know
it is coming. The question really is when. Our company is speeding up
its arrival, but if we didn't do it, it would still happen. If the
Wright Brothers hadn't flown, airplanes would have still come about.

TWST: As we look into the future, will the way it happens always be that
you have it at home and you drive it to the airport and take off from
the airport, or would they be left at airports as well?


Dr. Moller: There is a very broad spectrum of ways that could be used.
Boeing Company, for example, thinks that air taxi is going to be the
major usage, and they could very well be right. People could lease them
or they could rent them. Again, they could land at your local heliport
or vertiport or at some point arrive at your home without a pilot on
board ready to transport you and your family anywhere you like. You
would then climb on board and be delivered to wherever you want without
being involved in the flying process.

TWST: That would be airport to airport.


Dr. Moller: That could initially be airport to airport or vertiport to
vertiport, which might be a small area in the city or a number of areas
in the city, and then you would drive the Skycar from there to your
appointment and then return to the vertiport. At some advanced stage,
probably within 10 years, many of us will be able to take off from our
homes. The only limitation to that right now is noise, and we have ways
to bring the noise down to the point where you would be able to take off
and fly without disturbing your neighbors. When that happens, you really
won't need a vertiport. You will be able to go directly from your home
to anywhere within 750 miles non-stop.

TWST: Would you describe in layman's terms the technological
breakthrough that you made?


Dr. Moller: The most important one, quite frankly, is the engines. The
Skycar is a little like a hummingbird. A hummingbird has a high
metabolism, and that means you need a large amount of power and must
generate that power in a very small package. So my company has spent
almost 40 years and close to $40 million developing engines that are low
cost, extremely reliable, very small, very powerful and can burn any
fuel. The Skycar presently uses alcohol, but we can operate on diesel or
gasoline as well. Without this engine, there could not be a Skycar. We
have also done a lot of things in material use and concept design, and
we have done testing to develop the appropriate computer algorithms,
etc., to work with our computers, but if there is one single factor that
is most significant, it is our development of these special powerplants.
Look at the history of aviation. It has gone forward based upon the
powerplant development. The Wright Brothers built their own engine and
made it work. The next big step was Glenn Curtis with his motorcycle
engine that he ended up expanding into the aviation market, and that has
pretty much been the history. Jet planes came along with the jet engine.
The rotary engine or the Rotapower' engine, as we call it, is the key to
the future of personal aviation.

TWST: Could you sketch out your timetable or your scenario for the next
two to four years?


Dr. Moller: In the next two to four years, we are going to be supplying
unmanned and manned vehicles for paramilitary, military and other
specialized users as well as other spinoff technology for the market.
Initially you are not going to see many of these vehicles in the
civilian market, but they are going to arrive in fairly large numbers
within five to 10 years. I think

Dr. Daniel Goldin, the ex-head of NASA, put it really well when he said
that within 10 years, 25% of the American population will have access to
this type of vehicle, and within 25 years, 90% of the American
population will have access. I think you can accept his view better than
mine. Obviously I'm biased and an optimist or I wouldn't be doing what I
am doing.

TWST: What problems or challenges still lie ahead for you?


Dr. Moller: The major issue for us is finding the right strategic
partner to make this happen because clearly this is a technology that is
not something you can develop in your garage, and it is not even
something you can bring to the marketplace in a small organization. So
we are casting about for the right partner to make this happen. It could
be a General Electric or a General Motors. It could be some combination
of both, but it is clearly a manufacturing entity that knows how to
produce product in large volumes economically. That's what the
automotive industry can do. It is also what foreign countries like China
can do and seem more inclined to do so; therefore, we are talking to
businesses and government in that country as well.

TWST: What about the short takeoff type vehicle? It might be one that
just goes a few hundred yards and then takes off. We've heard a lot
about that, but it doesn't seem to have permeated the whole situation.


Dr. Moller: I think the problem with STOL (short take-off and landing)
is that while it may be a vehicle that is more useful than many of the
light planes today, it still needs an airport. It is still far removed
from that final step of vertical takeoff because vertical takeoff makes
it possible to have a flat roofed house in the city and take off from
your home. That is a major step. STOL is interesting. It has a lot of
specialized uses, but it really doesn't do anything like VTOL will do
and that is the big difference. That is why what the humming bird does
is quite unique. It is not an easy thing to do in nature and it is
certainly equally difficult to do technologically.

TWST: Have you been on this project full time to the exclusion of other
things or have you been working on other inventions along the way?


Dr. Moller: You get spinoff technologies when you're working on any
major project and, of course, I use those spinoff technologies to help
fund the Skycar development. The Skycar is longer range, which many
people might consider an impractical goal. Of course, it was an
impractical goal to start with considering that it took 40 years to
develop. But along the way we've created many other things. At one point
we were the world's largest manufacturer of high performance mufflers. I
have had personal success in some fairly large real estate projects
which has helped create operating capital. We've licensed certain
elements of our technology to other companies along the line. At one
point we developed an engine for General Electric. So we have done
anything necessary to survive financially. In recent years we have had
increasing interest in our engine technology from the investor
community. Raising capital for technologies like the Skycar continues to
be very difficult. Corporations today in America look at the six-month
bottom line. They don't look at six years, and that makes it very
difficult to raise capital with corporate America's limited vision.

TWST: How are you doing for cash right now?


Dr. Moller: We've always been undercapitalized, but we continue to
progress technically despite this. So I suppose persistence is probably
our greatest attribute.

TWST: Could you tell us about yourself and perhaps about one or two of
your colleagues?


Dr. Moller: My technical background started at trade school where I
became an aircraft welder, machinist and a certified aircraft mechanic.
I went into industry for a while and then back into graduate school
where I got my Master's and PhD. I still felt that because I had not
done undergraduate work that I needed to improve my basic background, so
I decided to teach as a means of learning. I joined the University of
California and taught for approximately 10 years. While there I created
the aeronautical curriculum at the University of California in Davis,
putting in wind tunnels and a lot of aeronautical tools. In 1967 I
formed a small company, almost a garage operation, and began developing
various aeronautical products. This activity expanded into a number of
businesses, one of which sold about $100 million of muffler product
worldwide. I've also developed other mechanical products that have been
licensed and manufactured. But even though my company created hundreds
of millions of dollars in capital, the problem is that this technology
costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, so the net consequence
of that is zero. Only now are we in a position to move our products into
the global economy.

TWST: And your colleagues?


Dr. Moller: I have, of course, various talented people within my company
because while I'm a mechanical and aeronautical engineer, I'm not an
electronics engineer. This is a technology that requires expertise in
many other areas like materials and composite construction. So I have
had some of the best people working with me over the years, and have
hired the very best as consultants. Today we probably have every
significant expert in rotary engines working for us as consultants
except those employed by Mazda.

TWST: Looking back over the years as you've worked on these things, has
there been any controversy? I read that the SEC issued a complaint.


Dr. Moller: That's correct.

TWST: Could you explain that?


Dr. Moller: Yes. Any non-public company (which we were early on) that
raises money from what we would call angel investors or any investors
has to raise it under certain SEC regulations that require you to
determine that you are dealing with sophisticated investors. The problem
is that sometimes people who want to become investors in your company
will exaggerate their own net worth or sophistication, and it's really
up to us to determine whether that's valid or not. We did have some
investors come on board that the SEC argued were not sophisticated.
Normally this kind of issue is resolved by providing a rescission
agreement so that the investor can get his money back plus 12% interest.
We have used this before successfully when any issue came up. The
individual we were dealing with within the SEC resisted this approach.
We believe he did so knowing that the investors in question did not want
their money back and this would have voided his case. Any small company
that has faced off against the SEC will tell you that you do not fight
this powerful government agency. You accept a fine to settle. You don't
accept guilt. You're not claimed to be guilty, but a fine is a way of
getting rid of something that you could never win if you really try to
defend yourself. If anybody has experienced a fight with the IRS or the
SEC, they learn quickly enough that, as a small company, you don't have
the government resources to legally fight it. The few who try always
lose.

TWST: Do you get around much lecturing and talking about what you're
doing?


Dr. Moller: I get invited to talk at many different forums, but the only
thing I do consistently is give a paper every year at the World Aviation
Congress. Periodically during the year, I may give a talk to various
groups. I was recently invited to be on a panel of a major FAA sponsored
discussion in Atlantic City on the future of aviation. I had to decline
because I am scheduled to meet in China to discuss the production of the
Skycar there.

TWST: Around the globe I assume there are some people doing things that
are somewhat similar.


Dr. Moller: Some smaller companies are trying. But I'm actually
protected by the enormous cost of doing this. On one hand, you have the
big organizations like the aerospace companies working on military VTOL
aircraft, but their solution is always the same one: put a large turbine
engine in it, take off vertically, and yes, that's doable, but you have
a product that costs $25 to $100 million. On the other hand, you have
people who, if they do not possess our engine technology, have no
serious way of achieving their goals inexpensively. The bottom line is
that no matter how successful you are at vertical takeoff, if it's not
economic, it doesn't have a market. So that is where we have a great
advantage with our engine. It is low-cost and powerful, and makes all
our products possible. In addition we have a number of patents that give
us a lead. We won't keep this lead forever, but for the time being, we
certainly are ahead of everyone else in the world by at least five
years.

TWST: I read that when Skycar is completely ready, in today's money you
could purchase one for $50,000 to $60,000. Is that correct?


Dr. Moller: Yes, in volume production probably less. I don't promote
this potential because it may sound unrealistic. I will state as others
have stated after reviewing this technology that it should be as
inexpensive as a modest priced car at high production volumes. The basic
vehicle itself is not expensive, but its ultimate cost is colored by the
fact that you're dealing with the FAA, and you have maintenance issues,
reliability issues and some things that cars don't face. Still it is
only a matter of time, and someday at some point, everybody in the world
is going to have access to Skycars. They may not own it, but they'll be
able to get it and go wherever they want, whenever they want at 300
miles an hour and up to 25,000 feet altitude.

TWST: Very nice for the Boston-Washington corridor.


Dr. Moller: Well, not just there. I can assure you even from a small
town like Davis, California, going to San Francisco, which used to be a
one-hour drive, can now take five hours. It would make a great
difference to cover those 70 miles in 15 minutes.

TWST: What is the ceiling? 29,000 feet?


Dr. Moller: It can go even higher than that, but the engine's become
less efficient because we only turbocharge them for operation up to
25,000 feet. The Skycar itself has the aerodynamic capability of flying
up to 40,000 feet, but it would take a two-stage turbocharger '
something that we haven't developed at this time.

TWST: What will it look like, and what will its dimensions be in terms
of wingspread, etc?


Dr. Moller: When it's folded, it's the size of a big Cadillac; you can
park it in a single car garage. When the wings are unfolded, it's still
much smaller than a typical light plane, with a wingspan of only 18
feet. In the folded form, it is described as looking like a Batmobile. I
suppose that's a reasonable description; I can't do any better than
that. When the wings are folded out, it looks somewhat like a canard
winged airplane with large knobs on the end of the wings, which are the
ducted fan thrust units.

TWST: If it becomes very popular, are the skies going to be too crowded?


Dr. Moller: The best vision I can give you is if you took every car
that's on the highway in America today and put it in the air at the same
time, they would still be miles apart, except of course near the city
where you're coming in to land. So it's something where even if
everybody were commuting by air and you looked up, you would see only a
very few vehicles. It's remarkable how much air space is available to
use. On the ground we have space for a few highways, but in the air we
could have an almost infinite number of airways because we can layer
them both laterally and vertically. When you're in automated flight, you
will be on these airways, but airways can go around cities so even the
air over cities wouldn't be something you would normally observe as
being crowded.

TWST: With everything computerized and guided, human error must be less
of a factor.


Dr. Moller: Yes. We always joke about the fact that a drunk could get in
the Skycar, and the worse that could happen if he codes in the wrong
destination he would end up in the wrong city. But he'd end up there
safe and sound because the Skycar will fly you where you think you want
to go without you being allowed to be involved as a pilot.

TWST: Regarding the company itself, do you see any reason or need to
improve your capital structure right now?


Dr. Moller: We're always in a mode of either finding the right partner
to make it happen more quickly or raising capital internally, and of
course, raising capital is very difficult for an emerging technology
like the Skycar. As a result, we have spun off our engine technology
into a separate production corporation called Freedom Motors. Right now
we have letters of intent for almost $1 billion in engines
(approximately 500,000 engines). So the engine business is going to be a
big part of our investors' future. We're sure to eventually fund the
Skycar this way if we don't find the right strategic partner in the near
future.

TWST: Regarding finding a partner or alliance, what about also being
acquired? Would that be of interest at some point?


Dr. Moller: Neither I, nor my private and public investors are
interested in that at the moment. Of course, if we are going to join
forces with a company like Boeing, they're not going to sit there and
let me control that industry. So clearly, we would give up some measure
of control, but not our entire ownership. Besides, as a public company,
it would be up to my stockholders what we really ended up doing. I can
see a situation where we became a significant stockholder in a very
large corporation. I'm not saying we would join a Boeing; Boeing might
form a separate company, and we would have a strategic partnership
involving our stockholders and Boeing. We're in this for the long haul.
We see the future as being so bright that everybody is excited to
continue to be a part of it. If you follow our stock, you'll see that
people don't really want to sell it. We don't have a lot of people
buying it because they're not aware of our company, but it would take a
very modest purchase of our stock and the stock price would go through
the roof because there are very few of our stockholders who want to
sell.

TWST: What would be the two or three best reasons for a long-term
investor to take a very good look at Moller International?


Dr. Moller: I think they really have to look at our technology together
with the declining state of automobile transportation. They can get
comments from experts on our history and technology. They can get
detailed information from the company. They need to look at what we have
or hear somebody like the Chief Scientist at NASA, Dr. Dennis Bushnell,
saying that the Skycar volantor is going to be a trillion-dollar
industry within the next few years. A good example of its future is
reflected in the vision China has for this technology. They believe that
the Skycar can bypass much of the ground-based transportation
infrastructure much like cell phones, etc. bypassed ground-based
telecommunications. We're going to usher in the future personal
transportation and are certainly the lead technology at the moment. With
a little study it is not difficult to determine that this technology has
a tremendous future.

TWST: Have you reflected on how this will change the character of our
lives way down the road? Will people be living very differently because
of this?


Dr. Moller: Yes. It is interesting to study the demographics of what
could happen with everyone having access to a Skycar. I think San
Francisco is a prime example of how things could change. Today in San
Francisco you can pay $1 million for a small apartment because you can't
tolerate the commute, and you give up a lot in the process in terms of
liquidity for other things. When the Skycar is available, you can buy
yourself an impressive country home, buy a Skycar and probably put money
in the bank after selling your apartment in San Francisco. You just want
to make sure you're one of the first few out because real estate values
are going to fall. I think living conditions would be very different
because the world in which we operate is pretty much defined by how far
we can travel in a day. When we could only walk, it was 10 miles. When
we could ride a horse it might be 100 miles, and today with cars we can
go 500 miles. The Skycar expands that by at least a factor of five
(covers much of the US), so your operating world becomes much broader
and with cars slowing down it's probably even more competitive than what
I just described.

TWST: There's a tremendous trend of working remotely these days. If you
put that together with what you're doing, the shape of American life
could be very different in the future.


Dr. Moller: Absolutely, not only in terms of using the Skycar for
getting to work, if that's your first priority, but think about the fact
that when you're on that way to work, you could relax, work or even
sleep because you aren't flying this vehicle. You're not devoting your
energy to operating it or being stuck in traffic like we are today and
still having to pay attention as the traffic moves slowly along. The
ability to completely remove yourself from that and be productive will
change not only your commuting experience, but also your time at work or
at home.

TWST: Do you live in Davis now?


Dr. Moller: I live in the country near Davis, California. I grew up on a
farm in British Columbia, Canada. I enjoy country living, but also like
visiting cities like San Francisco or Sacramento, which is becoming
harder to do every year.

TWST: With your background, it would have been a very easy switch for
you to work for somebody bigger and make more money and be more secure.
How have you sustained yourself psychologically over the years?


Dr. Moller: I've had the satisfaction of creating products and making a
lot of money with many different products and on many other projects.
That, of course, helps keeps you going. But the thing that really keeps
me most excited is probably my optimism for the potential of what I am
doing. It's the best way I can put it because anybody who does what I'm
doing is going to have to be an extremely optimistic person. There are
times when things can get very difficult. We've had many periods over
the last 40 years where I have been financially insolvent by most
people's standards. I rose from the ashes because I have this absolute
commitment to making this technology work. Now, I'm not saying that I'm
so noble that I'm doing it for the sake of society. I think society
would benefit greatly from it, but it is a personal drive on my part to
have a vehicle that can do what I know the Skycar can do and will do.
The fact that society is going to benefit from this is very satisfying
as well. But I suppose I'd be doing this whether or not I knew I was
going to make money from it or knew that the rest of the world would be
using it at some point in time.

TWST: Thank you. (MC)


PAUL MOLLER
 Chairman & President
 Moller International Inc.
 1222 Research Park Drive
 Davis, CA 95616
 (530) 756-5086
 www.moller.com

Copyright 2005 The Wall Street Transcript Corporation
All Rights Reserved


The Wall Street Transcript (TWST) interviews are published verbatim, and TWST does not in any way endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any information or opinions expressed herein and all opinions are subject to change without notice. Nothing herein constitutes a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. TWST interviews with CEOs or other senior executives may include "forward-looking statements", which are based on factors that involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. TWST shall have no liability whatsoever for any trading losses arising out of use of this information. Copyright 2003 Wall Street Transcript Corporation. All Rights Reserved.