|
Post by maccades on Sept 6, 2012 17:54:09 GMT
Just a query that perhaps Mark can answer. Was any consideration given to re- equipping the BAC 1-11 with Pratt & Whitney JT8's? I I know the question is somewhat dated (sic)... however, for such a well made aircraft, JT8's would have made a good aircraft into a superb performer. And those noisy Spey's........ Oh well.. another time for that. Please keep up the fabulous work. BTW Really looking forward to the" NEW" DC8. Regards Maccades
|
|
|
Post by Alejandro on Sept 6, 2012 19:01:00 GMT
I don't know specifically for the 1-11, but remotorizating a plane usually is very difficult. For example, the 727 super 27 had it's 1 and 3 engines changed, but retained the older 2 engine because the size of the newer engines was different. The 737-300 was almost suspended because the difficult of fit a bigger engine under the -200 wing and landing struts. And, not only the engine is bigger, sometimes is heavier or lighter, and it changes the CoG of the plane. The Me-262s build in the last years, for examble, need to carry a heavy ring of iron inside the nacelles just for CoG reasons.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 6, 2012 19:29:13 GMT
Not that I'm aware of.
And in any case .... most British aviation engineering was "self catered" .... by the British themselves.
The RR SPEY was a very good engine and apparently well suited to the BAC ONE ELEVEN .... albeit it was also "VERY NOISEY" at T/O thrust !!!!
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Sept 7, 2012 10:42:56 GMT
The Spey was the only suitable engine for the One -Eleven at the time of development,
The Spey was also very reliable and quiet compared to other offerings at the time
The One-Eleven was never fitted with the noise suppressing exhausts of the Trident because the aircraft was considered not to be excessively noisy to lose the small amount of thrust using the nozzles.
I know it seems odd now, but the One-Eleven when it first flew was not seen, or rather heard, as noisy. It was a turbofan in the days of turbojets and that is why it didn't stand out.
Very soon the turbojets were replaced by the turbofans and later hi bypass turbo fans.
By the time the One-Eleven was left out on it's own noise wise there was no point in giving it the US engine as the DC 9 in many sizes and the Boeing 737 was stealing the main market share.
Another factor that made the One-Eleven seem noisier than it was is that in the beginning jets were confined to large airports. The One-Eleven brought jet travel to small airports in confined spaces with buildings and hangars acting as sound boxes and not letting the nose escape. So it may well have appeared noisier and been more of a nuisance than a 707 taking off in the open spaces of a large airport away from the terminal.
Even into the mid seventies the One-Eleven was not pointed out in any great way as there were still Comets and early Caravelles that could put a One-Eleven to shame and some early 707 and DC 8.
The One-Eleven was a good airframe and few even reached half their fuse life. So good that it lived well into the new quiet era and that was it's downfall.
People would not easily tolerate a smoky steam ship and cities would not like the smoke form many steam trains in the modern stations, but those were not considered so in their day.
the One-Eleven must be judged "in it's day"... and before that during design and it did represent a new generation of quieter, less smoky jet airliners.
The One-Eleven was eventually successfully re engined with RR Tays but the project was shelved mainly to protect the BAe.146/ Avroliners.
The One-Eleven should have been stretched and re engined back in the seventies. In many ways the Fokker 100 and Fokker 70 were what the One-Eleven could have and should have been. The One-Eleven had sold well until the start of the seventies and the sales suddenly dropped as other types really took hold.
That should have been the cue to get moving on a development or a new design but instead as with the 748, they took a very British view of trying to continue to sell it in ever decreasing numbers reducing the capacity for production as the lines slowed to a trickle.
I really don't know why they didn't develop the One-Eleven. Douglas with and later Boeing with the 737 showed clearly that the original popular base designed need to be puled around and re equipped in any way the markets requires. Making bigger at first and re engining, then taking the re design and shrinking it back to give the latest advantages to those who still found the old versions the right capacity.
As Originally designed, the One-Eleven was called "The bus stop Jet" and built to make frequent take offs and landing it was strong, very strong but lacked the range and height as well as being relatively heavy compared to other types.
it was compared on UK-Meditarranean routes unfavourable with 737 and later DC 9 directives but the One-Eleven was being used in a way it was not designed for.
Early on, when it was clearly seen that jets hopping around the country on small sectors was never going to be a major requirement, they should have considered a lighter version more suited to the usage it was all ready being put to.
In many ways the type was, as indeed the Vanguard and VC 10 were, a superb answer to a question no one was asking and left to fend for itself in the wider market it's advantages were soon lost.
|
|
|
Post by Klaus Hullermann on Sept 7, 2012 13:13:59 GMT
Great and very educational post Garry. When somebody wants to know something about early jet-aviation, then he/she just have to post a question here in this forum. Luckily the One-Eleven is available as freeware for FS9 and FSX (as a portover) from David Maltby. He did a great job and you have to know what you're doing when flying his birds or the plane will be ahead of you before you notice it. Klaus
|
|
|
Post by andersnielsen on Sept 7, 2012 14:07:58 GMT
Very good an educational post Garry, as usual!
Like the VC-10, the BAC 1-11 were built very strong and overpowered, so that they could take off from rough and short runways. Later the airports just built the rwy´s longer and with tarmac..
But I also think that there could be more reasons why the 1-11 was not further developed;
1) By the time these might have been implemented/planned, the brits were deeply involved in the Concorde project, both mentally as well as economically. 2) A 2-11 was on the drawing board (though more looked as a replacement for the Trident) with two engines mounted under the wings – looked pretty much like the later Airbus A3xx aircraft.
Hence, Concorde and future alliances with the French, Germans around the Airbus might have taken the attention away from the purely british initiatives from the mid-60´es.
Best Regards, Anders
|
|
|
Post by fran65 on Sept 7, 2012 16:41:30 GMT
Thank's Garry, a great aircraft indeed...her "almost horizontal" attitude during landing gives a very light and elegant look.
|
|
|
Post by maccades on Sept 7, 2012 18:12:41 GMT
Cheers Garry, Thank you so much for the in depth info. I am now much more knowledgeable concerning this "beautiful British bird" than I ever was before. Much appreciated.
Maccades
|
|
|
Post by Falcon on Sept 7, 2012 18:15:54 GMT
In the late 60's early 70's I believe it was Braniff that ran the 1-11 on short hauls in the upper midwest. She wa a beauty in the small areodromes, and I loved the sound and her looks. Was geat to passenger it also. The routes were 180 to 300 miles in length. Falcon
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 7, 2012 20:10:10 GMT
Both BRANIFF INTERNATIONAL and AMERICAN AIRLINES both bought and flew the BAC ONE ELEVEN. Interestingly though .... legendary AA CEO CR.SMITH is, later, recorded as having said "my only 2 mistakes were the BAC ONE ELEVEN and the CV990". Nothing wrong with the aircraft/BAC ONE ELEVEN .... other than it possibly not being entirely suitable for the type of work/operation/service AA applied it to Other US operators also flew the BAC ONE ELEVEN and among these were .... AIR ILLINOIS ATLANTIC GULF AIRLINES BRANIFF EXPRESS CASACADE AIRWAYS FLORIDA EXPRESS PACIFIC EXPRESS US AIR.... and there might have been a few other US interim perators of the type too. Most, if not all, of these "US subjects" were painted by Garry RUSSELL a few years ago .... and .... on the basis of what I determined last year having applied a number of his BAC ONE ELEVEN textures to the latest/current version DMFS models for these aircraft (as follws) .... .... Garry's BAC ONE ELEVEN textures do all "seem" to fit the new/current DMFS 3D model versions of these aircraft "without any apparent issues". Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Sept 7, 2012 21:36:29 GMT
Missed Air Wisconsin who operated 4 ex-BUA BAC1-11-203's.
|
|
|
Post by cgw444 on Sept 7, 2012 22:51:52 GMT
You can't forget these guys!!!
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 8, 2012 2:04:30 GMT
And just thinking more about this .... there was also ALLEGHENY AIRLINES .... .... which, if I'm not mistaken, is what MOHAWK was merged into .... before it/ALLEGENY was eventually merged into US AIR at a much later stage too. I think there was also a US corporate/VIP aircraft as well .... but .... I can't, for the moment, recall on behalf of whom it flew .... AND .... there was also another BAC ONE ELEVEN that flew on behalf of JET TRAVEL/SAHARA TAHOE (operated on behalf of SAHARA TAHOE HOTEL & CASINO) as well .... SO .... there's been a few of these birtds = that have made the US civil register even into the not too distant past. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 8, 2012 6:52:01 GMT
II The BAC 111 today is a wonderful simulation thanks to David Malthby. Rated as flying nearly as the real thing. The simulation depth is excellent working pressure cabin and water injection system for hot and high takeoffs included. www.dmflightsim.co.uk/bac_1-11.htm#475Regarding silencers: There were silencers available, the DM model offers them also. The Spey engines found their place even on the fine and expensive Gulf-stream II and III´s. A pity that a good airplane was designed in the first instance for the so called wishes of BEA-BOAC, which often were changed afterward to "buy American". So it happened with the Trident and the VC 10 also. The 111 as the Comet before opened new chapters of airframe design: while trying the new 111 the first airplane and its crew were lost due to a deep-stall created by its T-tail. The British shared their experiences with the Americans again and the DC-9 had no deep-stall problems with its T-tail and outsold the 111 by around 1:5 (976 DC-9) and including MD 80´s MD 90 and B 717 :2438 ie. 1:10. Nevertheless 244 of the 111 were built and sold thanks also to a constant development of the design from the 200 series up to the 475 and 500, 510 series. A former CEO of Austrian Airlines who was at the helms of that Airline, when it was small, fine and profitable said: Thanks God we didn't give in (to political pressures) to buy the BAC 111 and went the DC9 MD80 way after trying the 111 by leasing two of them. As the sales of the 111 tapered off, the production was sold to Romania as ROMBAC 111, only a few were built. Some of them found their way to the then new LAUDA-AIR, which leased the planes and the pilots. I flew twice on a BAC 111 as passenger (at DAN-AIR) and even as PAX one could feel the strong overbuilt airframe and the nearly flat landing attitude typically for a 111. for more see also: www.dmflightsim.co.uk/bac_1-11_history.htmand: www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/Seems some of the last flying 111´s ( 200 and 400 series 111´s WITH SILENCERS) worked for an air-taxi operator in Mexico at Toluca International Airport under the Mexican Registration XB-KCE and XA-CMG. The registration XA-CMG is now on a Lear 31. At Northtrop Grumman two 111 400 are still flying as a radar testbeds and the Royal Airforce still operates them. www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/bac1-11jet.co.uk%20Current%20fleet.htmwww.flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=913802www.aviacioncr.net/foto.php?id=9262Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Sept 8, 2012 12:54:56 GMT
The silencers you mention Walter were something else.
That was hush kits added later to meet more stringent noise regulations and has nothing to do with how the original aircraft was developed and the thinking behind why it used the Spey engine that was later considered to be noisy.
Aloha also had a pair of One-Elevens.
Many US corporate One-Elevens came from ex airline examples. Many American Airlines aircraft became corporate and one of those was operated by the Stewart Lumber Corporation in a hideous green and orange livery with eyebrows and smile.
That is one of 112 One-Eleven paints I published.
One note about the Braniff aircraft...they were built without the ventral airstairs.
My paints were all done for the older models and there is no fit issues but on the newer models the cabin window lights are linked to the landing lights.
Adding a solid black alpha to the night textures fixes that.
|
|