BAC One-Eleven
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ex Brooklands now Shropshire
Age: 62
Posts: 129
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know there have been a few 1'11s fitted out as business jets, but did BAC ever consider a purpose built 'BAC 111BJ'?
It seems to me they could have produced an aircraft equivalent to the Gulfstream jets but at much lower cost due to economies of scale.
It seems to me they could have produced an aircraft equivalent to the Gulfstream jets but at much lower cost due to economies of scale.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doctor,
Most of the North American 1-11s did end up as biz jets (in fact the few still around in the US are). The problem was the very noisy (& thirsty) Spey engines. Dee Howard did convert one to Tays and, from the video I saw shot by an FTE on the program, the noise was much reduced. I often wonder what a 1-11 would be like with BRR 710s or CF-34s - it would probably give a EMB-190 a run for its money.
The design rights were last held by Romaero but I've no idea what happened to them - or the fuselages left on the line in Bucharest. If you do a search in Yahoo Groups there's quite an active site that supports the preserved 400 Series at Hurn and also has most of the news of the type. Latest is that the Omani Air Force, which operates two Type GD (475 Freighter) versions, are looking to replace them with A320s.
Most of the North American 1-11s did end up as biz jets (in fact the few still around in the US are). The problem was the very noisy (& thirsty) Spey engines. Dee Howard did convert one to Tays and, from the video I saw shot by an FTE on the program, the noise was much reduced. I often wonder what a 1-11 would be like with BRR 710s or CF-34s - it would probably give a EMB-190 a run for its money.
The design rights were last held by Romaero but I've no idea what happened to them - or the fuselages left on the line in Bucharest. If you do a search in Yahoo Groups there's quite an active site that supports the preserved 400 Series at Hurn and also has most of the news of the type. Latest is that the Omani Air Force, which operates two Type GD (475 Freighter) versions, are looking to replace them with A320s.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A former colleague of mine, who had been Chief Pilot at a flag carrier operating 1-11s, described them as 'machined out of a solid block of aluminium' - indestructible, but very expensive to build.
Incidentally, his opinion of the Viscount (also operated by his airline) was that it was a total lemon, only redeemed by the excellence of its powerplants.
Incidentally, his opinion of the Viscount (also operated by his airline) was that it was a total lemon, only redeemed by the excellence of its powerplants.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Donegal, Ireland
Age: 70
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has there in fact ever been a British commercial aircraft that was even halfway decent?? They were all lemons as far as I can see - and some of them (Herald springs to mind) were absolutely dreadful!!
We never did manage to build an aircraft that was really popular with the world's airlines...
Over-engineered?? Old-fashioned practices?? Not listening to the customer?? What???
We never did manage to build an aircraft that was really popular with the world's airlines...
Over-engineered?? Old-fashioned practices?? Not listening to the customer?? What???
"We never did manage to build an aircraft that was really popular with the world's airlines..."
Let's see... Viscount was 1940s/50s vintage. What else was available:-
DC-6/7 total production - 1042
Connie/Super Connie/Starliner total production - 855
Convair 240/340/440 total production - 933
Considering at the time the dominance of the American market and the
preference for American built aircraft by US airlines I don't think a production run of 444 for the Viscount was at all bad. Certainly NOT a "lemon"!
And that's not even mentioning the Bregeut Deux Pont!! Talk about lemons.
Let's see... Viscount was 1940s/50s vintage. What else was available:-
DC-6/7 total production - 1042
Connie/Super Connie/Starliner total production - 855
Convair 240/340/440 total production - 933
Considering at the time the dominance of the American market and the
preference for American built aircraft by US airlines I don't think a production run of 444 for the Viscount was at all bad. Certainly NOT a "lemon"!
And that's not even mentioning the Bregeut Deux Pont!! Talk about lemons.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over-engineered?? Old-fashioned practices?? Not listening to the customer?? All of the above, plus actually listening to a funded but unique customer operating in cartel, pooled revenue, where capacity was driven by a distorted market - not until 1979 were Brits allowed to spend their chosen proportion of net, hard-earned cash in foreign currency. Of Brit jettypes only 1-11 was not launched by monopoly Corporations, but by (Fred Laker as) BUA, ahead of the target of US regionals, who did take it - Mohawk, Braniff, then AA. (to be)BA then launched /500, but by then 737/200 and enhanced DC-9s had left it for dead, because BAC/RR would not punt on upgrades.
There were attempts to do Tay /600, then to retrofit it to /500. Some say that would have cannibalised BAe.146, others that (then-nationalised BAe.) just lost all yen for civil after aborted 2-11/3-11 sorties. Better to make bits for other people. If the purpose of building commercial jetliners is to recover all costs with a surplus, then only recently have some models done this after >1,000 sales. UK thought that pilots/engineers bought airliners. Cost per ASM, maintenance man-hours p flight hour...who he?
Wasn't just Brits. Convair did better building 747 lower 41 and DC-10 fuselage barrels, than on CV880/990. Japan bashes metal profitably.
There were attempts to do Tay /600, then to retrofit it to /500. Some say that would have cannibalised BAe.146, others that (then-nationalised BAe.) just lost all yen for civil after aborted 2-11/3-11 sorties. Better to make bits for other people. If the purpose of building commercial jetliners is to recover all costs with a surplus, then only recently have some models done this after >1,000 sales. UK thought that pilots/engineers bought airliners. Cost per ASM, maintenance man-hours p flight hour...who he?
Wasn't just Brits. Convair did better building 747 lower 41 and DC-10 fuselage barrels, than on CV880/990. Japan bashes metal profitably.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vickers (BAC) VC-10
A truly beautiful airliner which provided a level of refinement that was ahead of the field. I travelled back from Aden in a BUA example and still recall being impressed with the smooth flight and quiet cabin thanks to those RR Conways being at the back. the VC-10s ability to operate 'hot & high' was better than the 707 .
Empress of the skies methinks.
My personal view is that we could, indeed did, build some of the finest aircraft in the world. Sadly we lacked the necessary hard nosed commercial approach that is necessary to succeed in the numbers game of big business.
A truly beautiful airliner which provided a level of refinement that was ahead of the field. I travelled back from Aden in a BUA example and still recall being impressed with the smooth flight and quiet cabin thanks to those RR Conways being at the back. the VC-10s ability to operate 'hot & high' was better than the 707 .
Empress of the skies methinks.
My personal view is that we could, indeed did, build some of the finest aircraft in the world. Sadly we lacked the necessary hard nosed commercial approach that is necessary to succeed in the numbers game of big business.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how many are flying. I did see the Rumainian one at SEN last year with its hush kit and its take over noise level seemed no louder than most other jets. In fact I was disappointed.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Donegal, Ireland
Age: 70
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tornadoken, thanks for that - short, succinct, factual - I learned something!!
microlight av8r - didn't the VC10 drink fuel like it was going out of fashion?? And not terribly many were built for airlines outside the UK...
microlight av8r - didn't the VC10 drink fuel like it was going out of fashion?? And not terribly many were built for airlines outside the UK...
"didn't the VC10 drink fuel like it was going out of fashion?? "
It did somewhat. And Boeing managed to get hold of an internal BOAC memo comparing the operating costs of the Super VC-10 and the 707 which stated that the Super had a higher sfc than the 707. Boeing immediately showed this statement to prospective customers with a comment like "Even the airline that specified it finds it uneconomic".
What they "ignored" was further information in the report that said that though the sfc was higher wherever a VC-10 operated alongside 707s and DC-8s the load factor on the -10 was about 20 pax greater which more that offset the higher fuel burn. Passengers loved it!
It did somewhat. And Boeing managed to get hold of an internal BOAC memo comparing the operating costs of the Super VC-10 and the 707 which stated that the Super had a higher sfc than the 707. Boeing immediately showed this statement to prospective customers with a comment like "Even the airline that specified it finds it uneconomic".
What they "ignored" was further information in the report that said that though the sfc was higher wherever a VC-10 operated alongside 707s and DC-8s the load factor on the -10 was about 20 pax greater which more that offset the higher fuel burn. Passengers loved it!
I think the memo actaully compared cost per hour which was more than the 707. But as the 10 was considerably faster, the cost of flying it across the Atlantic was about the same. And as mentioned, it was more popular with the passengers. Roomier, smoother and quieter. The 707 dutch rolled it's way across the Atlantic due to it not having a yaw damper making the passengers in the last few rows very queasy. BOAC filled the 10s, it was the 707s which had empty seats due to it being less popular.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV8R: (UK) sadly lacked the hard nosed commercial approach that is necessary to succeed in the numbers game of big business.
Until 1987 we owned the Corporation Users and paid some of an aircraft type's Certification cost, repayable by Sales Levy. 1977-1985 we paid all of it as we owned BAe. UK State funding of commercial aircraft began in March,1943 with Bristol T.167. Brabazon Committee's remit was to specify "supreme" types, and in D.H.104 Dove and VC2 Viscount they did. UK funded 100% of civil types' R&D until (Viscount Major) Vanguard, on which we spent £0 (because Vickers wanted to keep all the upside {!}). Then Sandys came along - yes, him. In 1960 he introduced 50% Launch Aid for VC10 for BOAC, Trident for BEAC. Ministers did not choose the types - Corpns. did, bespoke. (BUA chose to be 1-11 and BAC pursuaded Ministers to pony up as Caravelle could not, but they could, sell in US).
The rot that blighted UK civil industry was that while BEAC/BOAC awaited their new types, Ministers got fed up with their losses and required Chairmen to try to spell "efficiency". Floundering in unfamiliar economics, doubtless, as AV8R suggests, aided by US brochuremanship, they forecast VC10/Trident with higher aircraft-mile costs than 707/727, and noisily extracted subsidies to compensate their social service, Jobcentre function on "uncompetitive" British aircraft.
It didn't matter what the outcome was, load factor x yield: Corpns. had their cushion, Boeing/Douglas had ample ammunition to deflect UK salesmen. In fact constant 707 operating enhancements offset VC10's smooth ride. A comparison might be Leyland/Rover models resting on laurels of style while dull Japanese motors would resist corrosion parked on wintry streets, and start at first try. BOAC’s last Super VC10 arrived July,’69; last departure was May,’81. Its last 707 arrived in May,1971; last disposal from BA in June,’83, from (BA-)Br.Airtours in June,1984.
Until 1987 we owned the Corporation Users and paid some of an aircraft type's Certification cost, repayable by Sales Levy. 1977-1985 we paid all of it as we owned BAe. UK State funding of commercial aircraft began in March,1943 with Bristol T.167. Brabazon Committee's remit was to specify "supreme" types, and in D.H.104 Dove and VC2 Viscount they did. UK funded 100% of civil types' R&D until (Viscount Major) Vanguard, on which we spent £0 (because Vickers wanted to keep all the upside {!}). Then Sandys came along - yes, him. In 1960 he introduced 50% Launch Aid for VC10 for BOAC, Trident for BEAC. Ministers did not choose the types - Corpns. did, bespoke. (BUA chose to be 1-11 and BAC pursuaded Ministers to pony up as Caravelle could not, but they could, sell in US).
The rot that blighted UK civil industry was that while BEAC/BOAC awaited their new types, Ministers got fed up with their losses and required Chairmen to try to spell "efficiency". Floundering in unfamiliar economics, doubtless, as AV8R suggests, aided by US brochuremanship, they forecast VC10/Trident with higher aircraft-mile costs than 707/727, and noisily extracted subsidies to compensate their social service, Jobcentre function on "uncompetitive" British aircraft.
It didn't matter what the outcome was, load factor x yield: Corpns. had their cushion, Boeing/Douglas had ample ammunition to deflect UK salesmen. In fact constant 707 operating enhancements offset VC10's smooth ride. A comparison might be Leyland/Rover models resting on laurels of style while dull Japanese motors would resist corrosion parked on wintry streets, and start at first try. BOAC’s last Super VC10 arrived July,’69; last departure was May,’81. Its last 707 arrived in May,1971; last disposal from BA in June,’83, from (BA-)Br.Airtours in June,1984.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundloop,
My apologies - you're correct it's an ex-BCAL Series 530 according to the museum website. When I saw it a couple of years ago, I was under the impression that it was an ex-Channel aircraft - they had the only 400 Series with twin overwing exits as the IT configuration (99 pax IIRC) demanded it. A test flight (As SLB with the rest of my Apprentice School class) to check the pressurisation systems was the only flight I ever had on a 1-11.
The 1-11 was aimed squarely at the American market. The AUW was at the then maximum allowed with just two crew. The airlines that took them also included United, Aloha & Alleghany. I still have a marketing brochure that details a day's flights for a Braniff aircraft going from Love Field all around Texas and making a profit on every leg even when the number of pax was down to about 30 (the Mail subsidy really covered the expenses).
It's funny, I was reading a press release yesterday for Bombardier's proposed C-Series which said the ideal regional was 5-abreast seating and 110 pax - same as the 500!
My apologies - you're correct it's an ex-BCAL Series 530 according to the museum website. When I saw it a couple of years ago, I was under the impression that it was an ex-Channel aircraft - they had the only 400 Series with twin overwing exits as the IT configuration (99 pax IIRC) demanded it. A test flight (As SLB with the rest of my Apprentice School class) to check the pressurisation systems was the only flight I ever had on a 1-11.
The 1-11 was aimed squarely at the American market. The AUW was at the then maximum allowed with just two crew. The airlines that took them also included United, Aloha & Alleghany. I still have a marketing brochure that details a day's flights for a Braniff aircraft going from Love Field all around Texas and making a profit on every leg even when the number of pax was down to about 30 (the Mail subsidy really covered the expenses).
It's funny, I was reading a press release yesterday for Bombardier's proposed C-Series which said the ideal regional was 5-abreast seating and 110 pax - same as the 500!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 707 dutch rolled it's way across the Atlantic due to it not having a yaw damper....."
Anybody like to comment ?
( I thought they all had them - obviously mistaken )
Anybody like to comment ?
( I thought they all had them - obviously mistaken )
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, "its" should not have an apostrophe in it, for a start.
My understanding is that the yaw damper on a 707 was perhaps not as effective as it needed to be. I have read somewhere before that travel in the last few rows was likened to "being in a washing machine", although honestly don't remember it that way myself.
My understanding is that the yaw damper on a 707 was perhaps not as effective as it needed to be. I have read somewhere before that travel in the last few rows was likened to "being in a washing machine", although honestly don't remember it that way myself.
Was this due to a gentle flexing of the fuselage, as in the 757?
I'm sure that the "tubes" were about the same length.
Sitting in an aisle row at the very back gave a most interesting view!
r
I'm sure that the "tubes" were about the same length.
Sitting in an aisle row at the very back gave a most interesting view!
r