BAC One-Eleven
 

How many still airworthy? Any airline still flying them?

Hello World!..

Been itching to say that !!..

Try http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/

Cheers

M5DND

We frequently see (and of course hear) one 1-11 around here, it is operated by Empire Test Pilot School.
The 1-11 was the first aircraft, I ever flew on. Back in 1973.... This one

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.

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.

"the preserved 400 Series at Hurn "

Which one is it and where is it kept? I know the Bournemouth Aviation Museum has a series 500 but I don't know of a 400.

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.

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..."
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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

"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!

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.

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.

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!

"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 )

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.

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 don't wan't to cause a significant thread drift from the 1-11 topic but I was led to believe that the 707 /KC-135 family all had a Stability Augmentation System:originally evolved from one first first developed to cure severe dutch rolling inherent in the B-47. Perhaps somebody with first-hand fleet experience could comment or clear this one up?

E3 aircraft have two yaw damper systems, a series yaw damper as the primary and a parallel yaw damper as a back up. Both systems must be serviceable before flight.

all the 707s had yaw dampping, the early ones had parallel and the 300s had series if I remember correctly.
you are correct the back of the A/C looked very intresting from the front of the cabin.

British jets of the 50s
 

Despite the earlier rather unkind and disparaging reference to the Herald, this aeroplane was in the early stages of further development until the demise of HP, on the drawing board were;
HP127, a modified Herald with two RR Speys in under wing pods.
HP125, a military type Herald with 18 vertical lift RR RB162 jets in pods under the wings.
HP 132 Herald with uprated Darts plus two GE CF700 turbo fans in wing tip pods.
There were other military/cargo type variants, but the ones above do stir the imagination! yes, the Herald was a little over British, but not dreadful, did the job and was a very good freighter for many years,
best regards,
om15

I used to work for DanAir in the late 80's early 90's and one of my summer roles was supplying demineralised water for the water injection system on the 1-11, had great fun tootling around LGW in my ancient water bowser filling the tanks or chucking barrels onboard for the return leg:)

Midland ran them circa '69-'70, and I recall going with my dad to Castle Donington Power Station to collect supplies.

Dad was always a bit miffed that it was dumped soon after departure....

r

The ill fated Welsh airline Airways Cymru launched with an old 1-11 in the late 80's. Despite the hush kit it was still very noisy.
http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/images/1...n%20flight.jpg

I'm not sure if choosing old 1-11's was a good business move. They were always breaking down.
http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/images/1...1%20G-WLAD.jpg

G-WLAD parked on the old stand 13 at EGFF (Cardiff)
http://unforgettable.org.uk/cambrian.../AWIC/aice.jpg
http://unforgettable.org.uk/cambrian.../AWIC/aicb.jpg

One-Elevens still flying - not many. Here in UK, there are three which all fly from Boscombe Down - Srs.432s ZE432 with ETPS, ZE433 with Tyhoon's nose radar and Series 500 ZH563 also on radar trails. There are one or two still in Romania, I believe, the Oman Air Force still has three and there are a few executive 1-11s around in the States and possibly in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia etc.

Bet you remember this then..

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1165089/M/

The hump on 09/27 caused some uncomfortable nosewheel bouncing on that 1-11.

I once heard a story of it arriving at Leeds on 27 "firmly", and all the oxygen masks deploying. Welcome to Leeds. Can 27 accept a 1-11?

r

OM15: Herald not dreadful (wandering a bit, but WTH). What separated 1950s' Brit sites from, say Fokker, who thrashed Herald in the marketplace, was not skill, but focus. I visited Radlett in 1962: 3 lines in the same Listed (listing) shed had Hastings on Major Service, new-build and Autoland-retrofit Victor B.2, and Herald new build. Try to imagine yourself as Works Manager at shift change, moving bodies, tools, parts, grubby paper! Multi-tasking or what? Part-BEAC-owned Aer Lingus was F.27 Launch Customer, rejecting HP in part due to Fokker chasing harder for the business.
All 3 types had 1947 in common - when Victor was schemed and bid, Hastings was in flight trials, and (to be H.P.R.3 Herald) Miles M.73 was designed with 4xAlvis Leonides, because Dart then had no funding and ASM Mamba was hurting (to be H.P.R.1) M.60 Marathon.

The Omani Air Force 1-11's are unusual in that they have the rough field u/c. One of them was converted to a PCF fit, the belly holds being converted to fuel tanks so that it could transit Oman-UK with just one tech stop.

I believe they (1-11s in general) don't have a fatigue life...???

If you didnt get the aircraft down on RW27 Jersey pretty bl**dy quick then there was a surprise waiting for you at the other end. A CLIFF ! And as for those drop down oxygen masks - WHAT DROP DOWN MASKS????? The BCal 500 series didnt have them and were restricted to a cruise altitude of FL350 (as a result) as far as I remember. That water injection system was a joy until the water ran out and you got that sinking feeling and dont even mention the WIFFLE tree.:ugh: It was a great aeroplane to fly:ok:

I could swear I was still seeing the raf operating this plane at dulles as late as 1998.

It's always fun to watch people wearing ear protection try to clamp them ever tighter as the plane taxis about the ramp at signature.

You wanna try standing under the #2 eng when it's being run at full power! Lucky I had ear defenders with me that day:ok:

Fly 380

I'm afraid your memory is at fault! All 1-11s had drop-down masks.
This was/is a certification requirement for flight above FL250. The maximum permitted FL350 was due to the max pressure diff. of 7.5 psi.
Should one make a (hardish) landing, the over-sensitive g-switches on the mask doors would operate, alloowing the rubber jungle to deploy. The general rule was, "if you dropped'em, you re-stowed 'em". Obviously your landings were pretty good!
Brilliant aircraft to fly, I agree, particulaly with the drooped l/e of the 500s allowing a straight climb to 350, even at max TOW!

Wrong!

I did 14 years, flying 6,000 hours and 6,000 sectors on the "Super 1-11" and I can assure you there were no drop down masks. As Fly 380 correctly said it was consequently limited to 350.

Although it would indeed go directly to FL350 at max weight it was actually outside it's performance parameters to do so - however "coffin corner" wasn't much considered in short-haul jets those days! (Also the Super was artificially MTOW limited to save on landing charges until it's last few years).

The S1-11 did do pretty good autolands though, considering the avionics fit, it was certified to CAT IIIA with a single autopilot and duplex monitors. I remember a magic box at the rear of the cockpit which lit up a series of numbers to denote the fault which had made it throw the autopilot out. However the half dozen or so genuine CATIII approaches I made worked perfectly, it was the practices that went pear shaped usually.

It also had one of the earliest RNAV fits (before that term was coined) in the name of HARCO. A moving map driven by Decca it could be coupled to the autopilot and waypoints fed in from a turret holding a dozen or so. when it was working it was great but in the Berlin Corridors in bad weather it had a nasty habit of jumping a lane and causing the US controllers there a heart attack in the process with loud cries of "TURN LEFT/RIGHT 4 -0 DEGREES IMMEDIATELY"

Flightwatch

Thanks Flightwatch. Seems like I dont need to check into the funny farm yet.:ok: Perhaps Boris worked for Tarom.:}

Ah yes, Flightwatch, you must have been flying for BEA at the time that they were trying to make all their aircraft "Super", when they were not that super really.
There was certainly a reduced "coffin corner" problem with the improved wing leading edge fitted to later 500s and, I believe, 475s.
Doubtless you will correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall BEA aircraft had the front airstairs replaced with a weight to appease the step-pushers union of BEA. As built, they were also short of water injection and the drooped leading edge. Not so Super really although the flight-deck cupholders were moved slightly from standard in the BA build specification! What profligate money wasters there must have been in certain areas but they managed to get away with no drop-downs!
I understand that, at a similar time, Boeing refused to allow BEA to brand their original 737s the "Super 737" as it would have implied something that it wasn't and thus pee of other customers!

In the late 70's, a BA 1-11 driver told me that the front airstairs were taken away to save weight. They then had CofG problems, so the airstairs were replaced with concrete blocks:rolleyes: