Happy birthday 146
And from another point of view, although I am happy to work on the 146, I still feel that the formation of BAe caused the early demise of the BAC One-Eleven.
As I understand it, the new company did all it could to hamper the re-engine with the RR. Tay of the One-Eleven, as that would affect 146 sales.
As I understand it, the new company did all it could to hamper the re-engine with the RR. Tay of the One-Eleven, as that would affect 146 sales.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that is quite the picture. Various proposals to enlarge the 1-11 were put forward by BAC in the late 1960s being the Two-Eleven and Three Eleven which, like many other proposals for British airliners became mired in political wrangling.
In the mid 1970s an uprated Spey was proposed by Rolls Royce and BAC proposed the BAC 1-11 700 seating 134. Rolls failed to produce the uprated Spey and the project died. BAe was formed in 1977 and the 700 reappeared as a hush kitted Spey powered airframe to be built with the intention of re-engining with the proposed RB 432 from the mid 1980s. This project died when BA ordered the 737.
BAe then proposed the 1-11 800 powered by CFM56s. Seating 150 this became a victim of the A320/321 programme. By the time the Tay came into the picture the UK production had long ceased and Rombac were producing the 1-11 at a snail's pace. This stopped when the communist regime fell. It was four years before Rombac finished the last two aircraft. By this time BAe had no interest in the type other than any fees from the Romanian licences for each airframe produced. There were plans for Rombac to restart production of a new glass cockpit, Tay powered version and Associated Aerospace of the UK ordered 50 to lease to various airlines and Kiwi Airlines in the US ordered 11 with five options.
Associated Aerospace went into liquidation so their order died and with just 11 firm orders the Romanians lost heart and cancelled the project.
In the meantime, Dee Howard in the USA re-engined an extant airframe as a Tay demonstrator and it duly appeared at Farnborough in 1990 where some interest was shown but Dee Howard, the proprietor, was in the process of selling his company to Alenia who dropped the project, concentrating on the re-engining of UPS 727s with Tays.
In the mid 1970s an uprated Spey was proposed by Rolls Royce and BAC proposed the BAC 1-11 700 seating 134. Rolls failed to produce the uprated Spey and the project died. BAe was formed in 1977 and the 700 reappeared as a hush kitted Spey powered airframe to be built with the intention of re-engining with the proposed RB 432 from the mid 1980s. This project died when BA ordered the 737.
BAe then proposed the 1-11 800 powered by CFM56s. Seating 150 this became a victim of the A320/321 programme. By the time the Tay came into the picture the UK production had long ceased and Rombac were producing the 1-11 at a snail's pace. This stopped when the communist regime fell. It was four years before Rombac finished the last two aircraft. By this time BAe had no interest in the type other than any fees from the Romanian licences for each airframe produced. There were plans for Rombac to restart production of a new glass cockpit, Tay powered version and Associated Aerospace of the UK ordered 50 to lease to various airlines and Kiwi Airlines in the US ordered 11 with five options.
Associated Aerospace went into liquidation so their order died and with just 11 firm orders the Romanians lost heart and cancelled the project.
In the meantime, Dee Howard in the USA re-engined an extant airframe as a Tay demonstrator and it duly appeared at Farnborough in 1990 where some interest was shown but Dee Howard, the proprietor, was in the process of selling his company to Alenia who dropped the project, concentrating on the re-engining of UPS 727s with Tays.
philbky
Thanks for the info.
I remember the -700, -800 and also the X-11 from my time at Hurn (1969-1973)
Re. the Dee Howard conversion.
I was talking to Ed Strongman, the CAA test pilot, at the time he was doing the Tay 1-11 testing at Teterboro. (We were testing the L188 at Macon GA).
He said that there had been a Vmca problem due to the higher thrust and increased thrustline with the Tay installation. They increased the area of the rudder and all was well.
The problem came when they went to BAe for structural calculations of the increased rudder loads on the rear end. BAe wanted about 1.5 million just to start looking at the calculations, even though everyone agreed that the 1-11 rear end was built like the proverbial brick outhouse.
This is where the 146 sales effect may have come into play.
IIRC Dan-Air had signed up for a number of conversions and also other airlines were interested and this would have delayed fleet replacement.
Thanks for the info.
I remember the -700, -800 and also the X-11 from my time at Hurn (1969-1973)
Re. the Dee Howard conversion.
I was talking to Ed Strongman, the CAA test pilot, at the time he was doing the Tay 1-11 testing at Teterboro. (We were testing the L188 at Macon GA).
He said that there had been a Vmca problem due to the higher thrust and increased thrustline with the Tay installation. They increased the area of the rudder and all was well.
The problem came when they went to BAe for structural calculations of the increased rudder loads on the rear end. BAe wanted about 1.5 million just to start looking at the calculations, even though everyone agreed that the 1-11 rear end was built like the proverbial brick outhouse.
This is where the 146 sales effect may have come into play.
IIRC Dan-Air had signed up for a number of conversions and also other airlines were interested and this would have delayed fleet replacement.
During the run-down at Hatfield I was briefly in the Corporate Jets bit and we had an MD who had been with a part of BAe Dynamics and had a tendency to talk of production numbers as "rounds" and wasn't too familiar with reusable machines. Can't recall what happened to him after the sale to Raytheon but he'll have had a future in the BAeSystems with what Barry described as things that go bang.
Not sure that is quite the picture.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did 10 years or so, twice a week, in the 146.
A bit smelly at times. Engines, I gather were
always a bit of a problem. I remember sitting
with an engineer, who told me that engine changes
could be done quite quickly, and the airline had spare
engines available, but the required bolts( fuse bolts I suppose)
were a controlled item and not immediately available.
John
A bit smelly at times. Engines, I gather were
always a bit of a problem. I remember sitting
with an engineer, who told me that engine changes
could be done quite quickly, and the airline had spare
engines available, but the required bolts( fuse bolts I suppose)
were a controlled item and not immediately available.
John
I used to see them years ago when PSA flew them here in California.
Last sunday I watched one late in the day re-arming at our local airport, fighting a big fire.
Turn oround time was about 20-25 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YtUsf375-0
f
Last sunday I watched one late in the day re-arming at our local airport, fighting a big fire.
Turn oround time was about 20-25 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YtUsf375-0
f
