IslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4929 times:
The BAC 1-11 was one of the best selling British airliners at 233, but production was nothing compared with the similar sized DC-9 that was launched at almost the same time.
On the other hand, the 1-11 got a lot of foriegn orders unlike the Trident and VC10. American, Braniff and Mohawk operated them, as did many other major carriers around the world. The planes also had a long service life, unlike the Trident which were usually WFU within ten years.
The 1-11 also had an interesting afterlife, as production was moved to Romania in 1982. Production there must have been difficult, because they only built nine planes in seven years! After production ended, Romania tried to update the plane with RR Tay engines and call it the AirStar 2600, but no orders and thus no production. Here is one of the Romanian built ROMBAC 1-11s:
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4882 times:
Big success. The British plane makers of the 50s and 60s were little companies, for example Boeing sent people over to de Havilland in the late 40s and early 50s on friendly visits to see how the Comet was coming along, and they consistently reported back to Seattle (ah, Seattle, those were the days) that there was nothing to worry about.
I grew up near where the VC10 was built, and I'm telling you, it wasn't the big production lines we see now in Toulouse etc., this was a different era. The VC10 made money for Vickers despite only selling 60 or so planes. They were all tiny companies, and there were dozens of them.
So yes, the BAC111 was a big success. Think of a little record company who usually sell a couple of thousand records worldwide, and they put something out that goes to number one everywhere and sells millions. That's the BAC111. Anyone name the company who started the BAC111 before they were consolidated into the British Aircraft Corp? It was someone tiny like supermarine or Airspeed. Let me put it this way, they weren't Boeing.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 37 Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4643 times:
Cedarjet, I don't know how many times I have to tell you on this forum the VC10 did NOT make money for Vickers/BAC, it lost them £20 million at '70's values. To back this up Sir George Edwards, Chairman of BAC said at a presentation he gave on 29 Nov 1982 said "the VC10 also lost us money".
As to the 1-11, it was a comparative sucess but it did not meet its true potential. Essentially the 500 series was underpowered. Had the RR Medway engine been built, the 1-11 could have been stretched like the DC-9.
The Medway was the original engine for what was to become the Trident, but because BEA said the original Trident was too big DH cut down the Trident to a size where it didn't need such a powereful engine as the Medway, it could use the exisitng Spey. As soon as BEA got their Trident deliverys they said it was too small so DH set about stretching it and RR set about increasing the thrust of the Spey. The upshot was both the Trident & the 1-11 stretches were underpowered.
Cessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 744 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4592 times:
One of the US Airline magazines had a great article on the 111 a few months back...lemme see if I can dig it up...
***checks stack of magazines***
It's the May/June 2003 issue of Airliners, No. 81.
Article is called "BAC in America," and it's a wonderful read. Talks all about all of the carriers that flew her, including American, Braniff, Mohawk, Allegheny, US Air, Aloha, Quebecair, Britt, Pacific Express, Air Wisconsin, Cascade Airways, Atlantic Gulf, Florida Express, Classic Air (charters), Jet Travel (dba Sahara Tahoe), and the Seattle Supersonics even had one!
The one thing that caught my eye was that in the article, it says that at the dawn of the jet age, it was this bird that introduced jet powered flight to many more people. Why? It was used on a comprehensive domestic structure. More often than not, your average "Joe" is going to be one one of those domestic flights, than on a Pan Am 707 to Barbados (for example, I'm not even sure if Pan Am had 707s to Barbados! Would make a good topic though...).
If you guys have the chance, stop by a library and look for that article. It's a very very good read overall.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 37 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4554 times:
I disagree. The first big mistake was cancelling the V1000 in 1956. As for the BAC 2-11 & 3-11 projects plus the HS 134 (a 757 look alike, years before the 757) I am sure BEA & BOAC would have screwed them up just like they did to the Vanguard, VC10, Trident & 1-11.
RiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4546 times:
The British aircraft industry of the '60s indicates what is going to happen to the industry in America. Britain in the end had to team up with France and Germany to form Airbus, because building globally competitive aircraft in the UK or any one of those other countries was too much of an expensive proposition. Today, we see Boeing buying more and more subassemblies from overseas partners, i.e. outsourcing systems and jobs that once belonged to Americans. The concept is they need to outsource these components to lower costs and be...globally competitive. So how long will it be before they move all the production offshore, probably to China? After all, they are no longer just competing with Airbus, they are competing with Embraer and its 3rd world cost structure. So someday we will be talking about American made aircraft in the past tense, the way we speak of the 1-11 today.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4544 times:
The BAC 1-11 did sell, but it couldn't compete against the likes of Boeing's 737 and 737 and Douglas DC-9 series by the late 1960's.
Small wonder why after the Airbus consortium was formed their first significant project after the A300B derivatives was a single-aisle airliner, which resulted in the extremely successful A320 Family of airliners.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4535 times:
I agree with vc-10, though the 1-11 was well regarded by those who operated it, and it was built like a brick!
However, the cancellation of the 3-11 was nothing to do with Concorde and everything to do with a change of government in 1970.
I until recently worked with some people who were at BAC in this period, they reckon that there was a noticeable change of attitude when the Heath government came to power, and soon enough 3-11 was dead.
And these people had no love for the outgoing Wilson government with all the cancellations in the 60's, some of them had started out on the TSR.2 military aircraft project.
Maybe it should never have been started, but having cancelled 3-11 the government failed to rejoin the fledgling Airbus project right away, Hawker stayed in with their own money until the UK re-joined in 1978 as part of BAe.
Maybe a loss of nerve following the lack of sales success of VC-10 and Trident, but the customer airlines for both behaved appallingly in this respect.
If the Medway engine had been on the 1-11 you would likely have seen a line of development right through to the 1980's when the CFM-56 was available, for a further stretch, BAe planned one and called it the 1-11/800.
But the 1-11 was a solid aircraft that served it's customers well.
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4471 times:
I don't think that the BAC 1-11 ever made much in the way of profits for BAC or British Aerospace. However, it was a well built and reliable machine. I well remember my uncle, who was a technical instructor with Aer Lingus, telling me in 1975 that the 1-11 208s in the fleet were in much better shape than their more recently acquired fleet of Boeing 737-248s.
IslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
So was the 1-11 the most-produced jet airliner in Britains history? Too bad the Romanian version didn't take off. I heard that Kiwi airlines was going to order it, but went belly up before placing an order.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4319 times:
The 1-11 programme effectively ended in the late 1970's, when BA went for B737-200s rather than the offer of a 're-fanned' Spey powered 1-11 development.
Hence the deal with Romania, as well as a fear of competing with the newly relaunched 146, which went on to sell better than the 1-11.
The VC-10s entire production was ironically about the number the BOAC said they wanted originally, until they cancelled many of the orders, this was an aircraft designed for them in the first place.
It really needed improvements to the Conway engine, originally the Super VC-10 was to be longer than actually happened, putting it in the DC-8-60 series capacity, guess who wanted it shortened?
Worse, BOAC put it about that it was more expensive to operate than the 707, which was later found not to be the case, in fact the VC-10 had huge pax appeal that lasted well after widebodies came along.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6414 posts, RR: 58 Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4189 times:
One of the better Airliners.net articles in a long time. As someone who grew up on the EI and BA 1-11's, and then the Ryanair Rombac's (complete with business class no less).
Its amazing how long these aircraft flew for... European Aviation's LTN - DUB service on behalf of Ryanair was going strong until recently - as were AB airlines 1-11's into Stansted - frequently subbing in for those terrible 146 replacements.
RiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3986 times:
Someone sent me an email about this thread, and I accidentally deleted it before reading, stupid I know but I thought it was spam because I didn't recognize the sender...So as the pilots would put it, "Say again?"