Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was The BAC 1-11 A Success Or Failure?  
User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6620 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.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Williams



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:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fred Seggie



Considering its history, do you consider the 1-11 a success or a failure?

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8079 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6573 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
User currently offlineAstrojet From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 565 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6497 times:

the initial project was made by Hunting Aircraft, as H.107, and after Hunting became a part of BAC in 1960 it was renamed BAC-107 and enlarged to the BAC-111.

User currently offlineMD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 920 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6456 times:

I agree with Cedarjet, it was a success. They had a good safety record, a long service life and were used widely around the world. I flew on one once, a -500 operated by LIAT. A nice flight.

Are they still being used commercially? I've seen a couple of short body variants used as private aircraft over the last few years.

cheers, Ralph



Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6407 times:

Approx 250 were sold in a much smaller av market than we have today. I agree.....it was a success.

Could it have been more successful? Of course.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3700 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6334 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

[Edited 2003-11-18 23:29:29]

User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6314 times:

That's a great pic from LGA, my local airport. Anyone know where AA flew the 1-11s to from LGA, and until when?

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6417 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6295 times:

The world's worst disaster in airliner production was in the 60'es and early 70'es when Britain put all eggs in one basket, the Concorde.

If only they had moved forward with planes like the BAC 3-11, then they would have been producers of a whole family of modern airliners today.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineCessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6283 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.



Save the whales...for dinner!!!
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3700 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Prebennorholm,

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.


User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6237 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.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6235 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.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6226 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.





User currently offlineTrident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6162 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.

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3700 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think that the BAC 1-11 ever made much in the way of profits for BAC or British Aerospace

The quote Sir George Edwards again from the Christopher Hinton lecture he gave in Nov '82, "The BAC 1-11....showed a respectable profit with 230 sold, two-thirds of them being for export".


User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6111 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.

User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6041 times:

>The quote Sir George Edwards again from the Christopher Hinton lecture he gave in Nov '82, "The BAC 1-11....showed a respectable profit with 230 sold, two-thirds of them being for export".

No surprise the VC-10 didn't make money...all that engineering and testing work for a production run of 60 some? Glad to hear that the 1-11 made money for the company.

But why no investment into improving a frame that is selling well and profitable? The design was basically the same in 1982 as it was in 65, Spey engines and all (gotta love the name of that engine!  Laugh out loud)


User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4511 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6039 times:

i used to ride Cyprus Airways BAC 1-11's between Beirut and Larnaca in the early 90's/late 80's.

all i remember is that they were smelly, filthy and quite noisy.

i remember being pleased when the route was given to the A320's around 1993 or 4 or so.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6010 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.


User currently offlineBen From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5935 times:

in fact the VC-10 had huge pax appeal that lasted well after widebodies came along.

...and crew appeal!!

My father flew on VC-10's for BOAC and you can still see the odd tear when he talks about them, even to this day.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7112 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5880 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.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5729 times:

>One of the better Airliners.net articles in a long time.

Thanks! I searched through the archives and couldn't find a good discussion on the 1-11.

I thought only TAROM flew the ROMBAC 1-11, did Ryanair really fly them?


User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5677 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?"

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7112 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5622 times:

Ryanair operated the Rombacs for a good eight years, complete with Romanian Pilots!


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineDiesel1 From UK - Wales, joined Mar 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5576 times:

The Rombac 1-11's also flew for Dan Air & British Island Airways in the UK.

Haven't some also operated in Pakistan too?

Sure there are some other airlines as well.



I don't like signatures...
25 Post contains links and images Ryanair737 : Nationwide Airlines of South Africa have one operational BAC 1-11 ZS-OAH. There is some flying in Nigeria as well. View Large View MediumPhoto ©
26 Diesel1 : Ryanair737 I thought that the Nigerian 1-11's were all grounded by the aviation authorities there after the accident last year Perhaps some are still
27 Ryanair737 : I think there is one last example still flying as the private transport of an airline operator in Nigeria. Ryanair737
28 Diesel1 : Thanks for the update fr737 I checked and found some details on Rombac 1-11 operators. Tarom BIA Adria AW Istanbul AW JAT Aero Asia Dan Air Ryanair Ae
29 KaiGywer : The only (?) modern British manufactured plane flying today, would that be the BAe-146 (aka Avro RJ)?
30 RiverVisualNYC : Kai Also still flying today in airline service are the British Aerospace ATP and the various Jetstream models, but these are turboprops. And the RAF i
31 FlagshipAZ : To answer RiverVisual's question, AA flew the 'pocket rocket' to all the eastern major cities in the late 60s & early 70s. I've seen them in BUF, DET,
32 RiverVisualNYC : Flagship - THANK YOU! Spending alot of time as a kid in the '70s in the LGA flightpath, I was always curious about that - and sorry I never got to rid
33 VC-10 : The 1-11 was the spur that Boeing & Douglas need to start the 737 & DC9 projects. As stated previously the Spey then limited its development. BEA only
34 VC-10 : I was thinking about this further today, and realised another ironic feature of this saga is that some 727's now have an updated version of the Spey f
35 Flyguyclt : I don't know if it was a success or failure. But as a flight attendant with Florida Express Airlines and then Braniff. I had a blast working the bugge
36 SprxflySWA : I personally liked the BAC 1-11.Only flew it twice (BOI-PDX-BOI,July 1982 Pacific Express).Trip over was in full colors,but had seat cushion about 1"
37 Post contains links and images Olympus69 : AA also flew the 1-11 to YYZ in the '60s - from LGA I presume. View Large View MediumPhoto © John Kelley
38 Post contains links and images PHX-LJU : Here are some pictures of Adria Airways' (Slovenia, then still part of Yugoslavia) leased (ROM)BAC 1-11s from 1987: View Large View MediumPhoto ©
39 Avt007 : Libyan Arab Airlines has just taken delivery of a 111, from overhaul at Malta, previously owned by a South African charter operator. This was reported
40 Aaway : RiverVisualNYC, Just to add to FLagshipAZ's comments...AA aacquired the 111's in response to the 111 purchase by Mohawk. MO deployed the 111s on N. Y.
41 Diesel1 : FR737... Apparantly Chrome Air of Nigeria kept a 1-11 flying as a freighter after the grounding of the pax 1-11s - it was seen in Romania recently - f
42 Post contains images Ryanair737 : Thanks Diesel1, do you know what series of 1-11 is it? Ryanair737
43 Diesel1 : I read it was 5N SEO which makes it 1-11-525FT (255)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
737-900- A Success Or Failure? posted Thu Feb 26 2004 01:38:59 by Khushdesi
Airline Deregulation: Success Or Failure? posted Sat Dec 20 2003 16:15:53 by IslandHopperCO
Boeing 717, Success Or Failure? posted Thu Nov 20 2003 19:40:52 by JU101
BAe-146/Avro RJ...a Success Or Failure? posted Tue Oct 28 2003 20:57:15 by IslandHopper
The BAC 1-11: Dwindling Workhorse posted Wed Jun 26 2002 23:29:40 by LAX
The Bac 1-11 Saga In USA. posted Thu Feb 28 2002 16:22:49 by CV990
Was The MD-11 Really That Bad? posted Tue May 8 2001 20:11:20 by Boeing-Lover
Was The CV990 A Reason For Spantax Failure? posted Mon Jul 3 2000 15:21:25 by Montenegro
EY304 On The 11/11: 345 Or 773? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 17:01:11 by Pe@rson
Why Is The 737-8 Bigger Success Than The 737-4 Was posted Sun Apr 2 2006 13:56:50 by Vfw614