BAC 1-11 Holiday Jets
The 1-11 was either underpowered or too heavy, maybe a little of both. Especially the -500 series. The Rombac I flew on was a real ground gripper but the high temperature and humidity didn't shorten the take-off run!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't forget US Airways in the states. After the 1972 merger of Allegheny Airlines and Mohawk airlines, Allegheny inherited a fleet of BAC-111's. They were there, in 1986 when I was hired, and were not retired until the early 90's. I can't remember how may there were, probably 20 plus aircraft, but the crews were fiercely loyal to the BAC-asauraus. It was also referred to the BAC-it-Rocket, and SST, (Super Sonic Trash).
The joke was, as the BAC's were replaced by the Fokker 100, that the last Fokker crew would dead-head home on a BAC. It almost worked out that way. The BAC was a great success story, the F-100, not so much.
The joke was, as the BAC's were replaced by the Fokker 100, that the last Fokker crew would dead-head home on a BAC. It almost worked out that way. The BAC was a great success story, the F-100, not so much.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes that's about right. The one in the lower photo was after 1991, when the "hush kits" were required. Of course the BAC crews referred this as the "Warp-Drive" modification. It did reduce the "Sonic" somewhat so that these BAC's, (Bocks), were SsT's. Still Super just a little less noise!.
Don't remember hitting the air valve on the 1-11. Used to use a 7/16" socket on a tee bar to turn the valve through a panel under the stubwing. Had to wait for the signal that the isolation valve was shut before closing the start valve or the snatch on closing could hurt your wrist. IIRC.
Walking into the wing fence was another favourite.
Oh and on some models there was a long pointy antenna alongside the fuselage under the wing. ADF?
Of course the cargo door was always a back breaker if you got the technique wrong.
When the eclipse over southern UK happened in 1999 several had been chartered, among other types, to chase the shadow. The eclipse was ruined for most on the ground by cloud, which had tops extraordinarily high that day, and the One-Elevens, plus their high-paying guests, were still in it at maximum altitude. Bit embarrassing when other types had been able to break out over the top.
Regarding the USA operators, these might not be thought of as "Holiday Jets" for this thread, but when the initial operators disposed of them they got somewhat concentrated into several secondary airlines based in Florida, and ran a whole range of services down to these. The principal US maintenance company for them became one based at Orlando International, on the opposite side to the terminals, who also did much of the latter-day buy/sell/trade of them.
Last edited by WHBM; 4th Jun 2021 at 21:56.
Thread Starter
If you were light enough to get to FL350 then the fuel burn was very low allowing a 4+ hour flight duration, but back at about mach .71
The 300/400s were the best performers.
ISTR that the service ceiling was 35000ft, some VIP 400s were certified with higher cabin diff that allowed then to go higher.
If you were light enough to get to FL350 then the fuel burn was very low allowing a 4+ hour flight duration, but back at about mach .71
The 300/400s were the best performers.
If you were light enough to get to FL350 then the fuel burn was very low allowing a 4+ hour flight duration, but back at about mach .71
The 300/400s were the best performers.
Regarding long ranges flown by 1-11 variants. I flew as pax on a Laker aircraft from Manchester to the old Tunis/Carthage airport (DTTA) which I thought was a pretty good haul for a ‘short’ variant 1-11. The take-off run was pretty extensive!
The short One-Elevens seemed to actually have better range that the -500 series. The initial BEA fleet were notably short haulers, I believe from London they couldn't get further than Rome. The later, mostly-IT aircraft were better.
Reference above to the USA fleets, which for the initial production took more than half the output, reminds that the -500 stretched model, like all of the Tridents, was never even offered to the FAA for certification. The only ones you might see in the USA were Caribbean/Latin American operators at Miami.
Reference above to the USA fleets, which for the initial production took more than half the output, reminds that the -500 stretched model, like all of the Tridents, was never even offered to the FAA for certification. The only ones you might see in the USA were Caribbean/Latin American operators at Miami.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCAL occasionally used the -500 on the Gatwick - Tripoli schedule which must have been a bit of a stretch.
Also I recall a Laker -300 in early 70's doing Tenerife North - Glasgow non-stop. I think the jet stream winds must have been very favourable that day.
Also I recall a Laker -300 in early 70's doing Tenerife North - Glasgow non-stop. I think the jet stream winds must have been very favourable that day.
Did the Laker aircraft have some additional modification for range ? Always seemed a bit strange that when Laker went under B Cal bought their One-Eleven fleet up straight away, while selling their established same size original aircraft at the same time to the USA.
Thread Starter
The 300/400 srs had the centre fuel tank that gave them a better range than the 200 that only had wing tanks. The 500srs had the same fuel as the 300/400 but had more airframe to carry around thus less range.
IIRC the wing tanks held 1100 imp gals and the centre tank held 800 imp gals.
P.S. The 300 and 400 series aircraft were the same other than the 400 was certified at a lower max weight for US certification with a two crew cockpit.
IIRC the wing tanks held 1100 imp gals and the centre tank held 800 imp gals.
P.S. The 300 and 400 series aircraft were the same other than the 400 was certified at a lower max weight for US certification with a two crew cockpit.
In the USA the 200 series just fitted inside the FAA limit of 80,000 lb MTOW, and was quite successful in its initial sales there. The 300 series was enhanced to be more capable in a number of aspects, but this took it over that limit if certified in the US. The 400 series was thus devised which was mechanically the same in all aspects but just certified to the lower limit, done specifically for the large American Airlines order for 30 of them, who wanted the extra capabilities but could live within the MTOW limit. Shortly after this was done the FAA revised the limit upwards, at the behest of Douglas who were developing the DC9. Thereupon the 400 was also recertified at the higher limit (just a paperwork exercise) and became the standard model number; only the first purchasers of the 300 (Laker and a couple of others) were left as they were.
I believe the initial idea of just a paperwork change to suit the American Airlines order was that of the senior BAC North America salesman, who was a onetime BAC/Vickers test pilot.
The FAA 80,000 lb restriction was not some spite against the One-Eleven (which I have read before), but had been introduced because secondary operators were starting to re-equip the flight decks of secondhand DC-6B aircraft for 2-crew operation. This was a complex, non-automated 4-engined piston aircraft and the FAA did not want 2-crew operation of it. For whatever reason putting an MTOW limit on had been the easiest way to stop it. Once the smaller 2-crew jets came along they devised a different way to do so.
I believe the initial idea of just a paperwork change to suit the American Airlines order was that of the senior BAC North America salesman, who was a onetime BAC/Vickers test pilot.
The FAA 80,000 lb restriction was not some spite against the One-Eleven (which I have read before), but had been introduced because secondary operators were starting to re-equip the flight decks of secondhand DC-6B aircraft for 2-crew operation. This was a complex, non-automated 4-engined piston aircraft and the FAA did not want 2-crew operation of it. For whatever reason putting an MTOW limit on had been the easiest way to stop it. Once the smaller 2-crew jets came along they devised a different way to do so.
ISTR that the service ceiling was 35000ft, some VIP 400s were certified with higher cabin diff that allowed then to go higher.
If you were light enough to get to FL350 then the fuel burn was very low allowing a 4+ hour flight duration, but back at about mach .71
The 300/400s were the best performers.
If you were light enough to get to FL350 then the fuel burn was very low allowing a 4+ hour flight duration, but back at about mach .71
The 300/400s were the best performers.
Only one way then musket 90. Also what pax loads each sector
