Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAC 3-11  
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3495 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8257 times:

BAC had a wide body design base on the 1-11, it had two Rolls Royce RB 2:11-22 powerplant on it tail like the 1-11, and a t-tail like a 1-11. I wanted to know what was the 3-11 width, length and height. So if any body any info on the 3-11 please post it?  Smile

Thank You  Smile

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13168 posts, RR: 78
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 8158 times:

For dimensions, check the pics here. (I cannot seem to link directly to the pics, so click on 'pictures' and scroll down to the BAC 3-11 section);
http://groups.msn.com/WisleyAirfield....msmw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=129

For some history;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_Two-Eleven_and_Three-Eleven


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 8142 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 1):
For dimensions, check the pics here.

And that site also covers the VC-1000 "tragedy" - another reminder of what we could have done.  banghead 


User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 8130 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 1):
For some history;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_Two...leven

Wow, thanks for posting that. I had already seen the 3-11 here on a-net, but I had never heard about the 2-11. Very interesting.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7869 times:

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 3):
Wow, thanks for posting that. I had already seen the 3-11 here on a-net, but I had never heard about the 2-11. Very interesting.

Likewise! I had forgotten they got so far with these things. The 3-11 looks nice, wonder how it would have fared.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13168 posts, RR: 78
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7787 times:

Not well perhaps, the RB.207 engine was axed, RB.211, with it's early problems would have meant a big delay in versions powerful enough for 3-11.

A colleague from my time in BA Concorde Engineering, as a young Apprentice at BAC in 1969/70, was involved in some 3-11 work.
After Heath won the 1970 election, the then Industry Secretary, Michael Hesaltine, visited the BAC plant.
Soon after, 3-11 was axed.
Incredibly, the Government did not re-join Airbus, though Hawkers stayed in with their own money until absorbed into BAe in 1978, when they formally re-joined.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7714 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Not well perhaps, the RB.207 engine was axed, RB.211, with it's early problems would have meant a big delay in versions powerful enough for 3-11.

Aha, the dreaded Heseltine, I might have known he would have a paw in it.

Presumably the 207 was two spool, I wonder how it would have fared in competition with the other two spool fans.

I have always wondered why Bristol S never got round to doing a big fan version of the Olympus. Would that have been a competitive engine at that time? Presumably, the basic engine was designed to perform well at airliner speeds as they were not that different to the V-bombers.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13168 posts, RR: 78
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

Bristols were actually planning to licence build JT9D's, presumably in anticipation of the BOAC order to come.
Perhaps also as part of the then planned 747 maintenance co-operation between some major European 747 operators.

This was likely a spur to R/R buying out their remaining UK rival, in 1966. Taking time, attention and capital from projects such as RB.207, RB.178 'Super Conway'-initially like an original JT8D to JT8D-200 improvement from the original Conway, for developed VC-10 versions, later a full on big fan version for the HS.178-a 1960's 757.
And of course, the RB.211 itself.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7617 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
Bristols were actually planning to licence build JT9D's, presumably in anticipation of the BOAC order to come.

How did the JT8D non-bypass part compare with the Olympus - in other words could the Olympus have been developed as a bypass had RR not taken them over?

Presumably the super-Conway had a higher BPR than the Conways that were sold, as I assume they had given up on engines embedded in the wing by then. Mind you, the engines used in the latest Nimrod make a bit of a nonsense out of that old argument!


User currently offlinebrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4243 times:

From the Flightglobal archives

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%202599.html

EDIT: DAMN! Sorry, didn't mean to bump an old thread.

[Edited 2012-09-18 01:31:02]


I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting brenintw (Reply 9):
EDIT: DAMN! Sorry, didn't mean to bump an old thread.

Actually, thanks for that link, it is very interesting.

I find it ironic how travel comfort has progressed. The "Inclusive Tour" layout, of 30" pitch and 17" wide seats is pretty close to standard Economy now. And the proposed normal Economy layout of 19" seats at 36" pitch is close to First Class on an MD-80 today!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 6):
Presumably the 207 was two spool, I wonder how it would have fared in competition with the other two spool fans

The RB207 was a three spool engine, a larger version of the RB211. It was intended for the European Airbus market.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3489 times:

Arguably, the 3-11 (had it been launched with a BEA order) would likely have grabbed a couple of British IT orders also, and then floundered on the market, a la VC-10, Trident or Vanguard. There likely would not have been room for the DC-10-10, L.1011-1, A300B2 and 3-11 all fighting for the same orders.

Probably a good thing the 3-11 was not launched.....



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3360 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 12):
Probably a good thing the 3-11 was not launched.....

Likely, but the big difference is that the 3-11 was not tailored to BEA or BOAC, so might not have followed the fate of the VC-10 or Trident. Much like the 1-11 was not tailored to BEA, and was a success.

On the other hand it was ahead of its time, with the whole concept of the wide-body twin. Considering the eventual success of the A300B, the 3-11 may well have succeeded at the expense of the L1011.

I am not sure if you noticed that the Flightglobal article went on for a few more pages. The numbers cited were pretty impressive, with far better economics than the DC-10 or L1011.

The big stumbling block was that the public was leery of the wide body twin concept. I remember reading an article in AW&ST when the A300B was announced, then when Eastern accepted the first lease .... the Editors commented on how they would never climb onto a 300,000 lb aircraft with only two engines!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 13):
the big difference is that the 3-11 was not tailored to BEA or BOAC, so might not have followed the fate of the VC-10 or Trident.

I thought the 3-11 was (at least partially) geared to a BEA requrement for a high capacity EU aircraft, eventually filled by the L1011-1 order.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 13):
Considering the eventual success of the A300B, the 3-11 may well have succeeded at the expense of the L1011.

Perhaps. The A300B took a long time to success though. Also, the travails of RR at the time (BK) might have delayed the 3-11 as it did the L10. Also, if the operating fcast of the 3-11 was so compelling, I wonder why no other manufacturer has proposed a wide-body T-tail? Although there were probably other aspects also...

Quoting longhauler (Reply 13):
The big stumbling block was that the public was leery of the wide body twin concept.

Not sure I agree with you. I don't think the public cared then (or now) about the # engines. Widebodies were all new in the early 70's and the 3-11 would likely have been welcomed by passengers.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 14):
I thought the 3-11 was (at least partially) geared to a BEA requrement for a high capacity EU aircraft, eventually filled by the L1011-1 order.


I would think you are right, at least that is how it would have been sold to British Parliament at the time. But, in this case, BEA's needs for a wide-body medium haul airliner would have been very similar to the rest of the world, unlike the VC-10 and Trident.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 14):
Perhaps. The A300B took a long time to success though. Also, the travails of RR at the time (BK) might have delayed the 3-11 as it did the L10. Also, if the operating fcast of the 3-11 was so compelling, I wonder why no other manufacturer has proposed a wide-body T-tail? Although there were probably other aspects also...


Yes, in hindsight, the RR problems with the RB211 may well have sewered the 3-11, like it almost did the L1011. But the project was canceled before the RB211 problems arose.

The only other aspects I can imagine are with any T-tail aircraft. They do require different handling from a conventional aircraft. But, as they are still being built today, I am guessing T-tail aircraft do have their merits. However, in some of the talk of the aircraft, there is mention "weight and balance issues", I can't find anything further on what those issues might be.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 14):
Not sure I agree with you. I don't think the public cared then (or now) about the # engines. Widebodies were all new in the early 70's and the 3-11 would likely have been welcomed by passengers.


Perhaps it is because I am older than you, but I remember the bad press about the A300B when it first flew in the US. Everyone kept saying how it was dangerous for such a large aircraft to potentially fly on one engine. (funny in hindsight). Now I am not sure if that would have spread to the flying public .... but I also think it was due to the inroads some obscure company named Airbus Industrie dare make into the domain of the best .... Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas!

I do remember though, when Eastern introduced the aircraft in the US, it was very quiet. Unlike the B747 and L1011/DC-10 fanfare, this was just another aircraft, almost like they were keeping quiet about it.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3700 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Reading Sir George Edwards (Chairman of BAC) bio he say the Tory Prime Minister "was jolly reasonable about it. I explained to him the virtues of the Thee-Eleven and what a good thing it would be for the British to go forward in this field in which we had been pretty successful with Concorde (this is pre oil crisis) and the One-Eleven. He was reasonable and understanding, but at the end said: " You know there is only a certain amount of money that we can invest in these programmes and we are already investing heavily in Concorde. I don't see that the money can go into both, there really isn't enough for both."

The debate was curtailed by the financial crisis at Rolls-Royce. It now became apparent that the company had severely over reached itself with the development of the RB 211. As a result, in December 1970, Fred Corfield, the Minister for Aviation, announced that there was no funds available for either the Tree-Eleven or re-entry into Airbus because Rolls-Royce had absorbed it all."

Prior to this there was also internal resistance to the Three-Eleven from one of BAC's shareholders - GEC who owned 40% of the company. At the time of cancellation BAC had spent £2 million pounds of its own money on the project.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic BAC 3-11
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
BAC 1-11 Vs. F28: Question About The Spey... posted Fri Sep 10 2004 22:15:26 by LVZXV
MIT/Cambridge To Unveil "silent" Flying Wing 11/06 posted Mon Nov 6 2006 02:24:03 by Lemurs
What Is This In The Delta MD-11 Cockpit? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 10:11:58 by MD11Fanatic
KLM MD-11 Aircraft Configurations posted Tue Oct 24 2006 20:07:06 by MD11Fanatic
Who Is A Type-rated MD-11 Pilot Here? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 20:02:28 by MD11Fanatic
"rain" Inside An MD 11 posted Thu Oct 19 2006 19:15:46 by RootsAir
DC-10 / MD-11 What's The Difference? posted Sat Jun 17 2006 23:55:28 by ContinentalGuy
Part-66 Module 11 B1 posted Tue Jun 6 2006 19:44:32 by A/c train
Why Does The Front-wheel Door Not Close On MD-11? posted Fri Apr 21 2006 00:14:33 by Aero145
Parked MD-11 Eicas Displays "Engine Fire" posted Mon Mar 27 2006 23:19:34 by Rolfen

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format