BAC 2-11 & 3-11

[hesham]

Hi,

the BAC Two-Eleven was developed from One-Eleven as a
large version and powered by two engines.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1967/1967%20-%201694.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1967/1967%20-%202253.html

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the BAC Three-Eleven.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200455.html

 

[stuckey]

The BAC Two Eleven was an interesting concept - it originated its life as larger developments of the BAC One Eleven and also various schemes of the VC10. During design stages various proposals were made of quite large aircraft with a number of different engine options - Conway and Spey.

Of course politics got in the way as usual and the BAC three Eleven superceded it - the Two Eleven is touched on in the Tempus Book BAC Three Eleven.

Richard Payne

 

[Overkiller]

Hi,

I am contemplating purchasing the following book:

Does any member have this book? I am interested in getting a brief overview of the contents prior to making a purchase decision.

Specifically, does it include any details on undercarriage arrangement (preferably drawings too), I am currently working up a scratchbuild of this in 1/144 scale and this book may well be purchased as a reference tool for the build.

any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Duncan

 

[Caravellarella]

Dear Duncan, I was thinking about buying this title too; but then again would the BAC 3-11 really have justified a whole book? Are you using a 1/144 A300B fuselage for your conversion?

Best wishes,

Terry, (Caravellarella).

 

[Overkiller]

Dear Duncan, I was thinking about buying this title too; but then again would the BAC 3-11 really have justified a whole book? Are you using a 1/144 A300B fuselage for your conversion?

Best wishes,

Terry, (Caravellarella).

At present I'm planning to use a 1/144 scale DC-10 fuselage, never considered the A300B, will check that line of thought against the drawings I've scaled to 1/144...

cheers

Duncan

 

[stuckey]

Good morning

The BAC Three Eleven is excellent in setting the scene for Britains decline in transport aircraft buidling. It goes into great depth regarding the politics, orders, subcontractors and then future without the project and ultimate demise of our commercial aircraft business.

I don't recollect any undercarriage drawings, I have 3 view drawings of the project but nothing that would be particularly detailed re u/c

Sorry

Richard payne

 

[Thorvic]

Airbus's are only 5.64 m in diameter, so are a tad too narrow, the DC-10, Tristar and Il-86 are 6.1m so are nearer to meeting the size of the 3-11. Although the shpares around nose and tail need some remodelling to get the correct look.

G

 

[Overkiller]

Thanks for the input folks!

I've decided to go ahead and purchase the book.

cheers

Duncan

 

[Triton]

Artist impression of BAC 3-11.

 

[Triton]

Artist impression of BAC 2-11.

 

[PMN1]

A good book on the 3-11 story is Graziano Freschi's 'The BAC Three-Eleven - The British Airbus That Should Have Been'

 

[Stargazer]

The BAC Three-Eleven - The British Airbus That Should Have Been

I'm a bit annoyed by the title of the book... It implies either that the BAC project was better than the Airbus (which remains to be seen) or that the author considers there a mistake was made somewhere. More likely, it is a way to flatter the British ego that they didn't need those Europeans and could handle the job perfectly... "The British Airbus That Could Have Been" or "The British Airbus That Might Have Been" would seem a much more modest approach to the program...

The Airbus is the sum of all the research done in both the UK and France by BAC, Sud Aviation and others to come up with a decent and workable design. History proved the idea worked! Dassault's Mercure, on the other hand, though a smaller aircraft, is evidence that handling an airliner project single-handedly was suicidal in post-oil crisis times. And I wish the French and the British had been able to work together as efficiently and willingly on the next gen fighters, back in the 1980s and 1990s, as they did on Airbus and Concorde. Likely there would be a standard, high quality and mass produced European fighter in service with many countries, instead of the Rafale and Typhoon aircraft that cost a bum for their respective countries, serve in very few countries (especially the former) and have merely flattered the nationalist views of those who will go for a book title such as the one above...

Digression closed!

 

[Spark]

A good book on the 3-11 story is Graziano Freschi's 'The BAC Three-Eleven - The British Airbus That Should Have Been'

I agree with PMN1, Graziano Freschi's 'The BAC Three-Eleven - The British Airbus That Should Have Been'ns is an outstanding book by an author who is a gifted and thoughtful speaker. All the more impressive when one considers the talk was in his second language and in my opinion amongst the best that I have heard.
He converted me to the BAC 3-11 camp.

 

[LowObservable]

The 3-11 was a last-ditch attempt by BAC to stay in the game as a major prime (before the BAe nationalization and merger brought it into the Airbus loop).

BTW, this history is interesting:

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/cit-sweetman.html

Reminds you that "300" meant "300 seats" and that there was a deliberate move to back away from that design and the huge RB.207 engine, to the 250-seat "Kolk machine" that could have a choice of 747/trijet engines.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of BAC Three-Eleven

Source:
http://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/bac1-11
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/a-milestone-42-years-in-the-making-airbus-delivers-its-10-000th-airliner/
https://yooniqimages.com/images/detail/216314278/Editorial/a-model-of-the-bac-three-eleven-at-the-farnborough-air-show
https://yooniqimages.com/images/detail/216313144/Editorial/a-ga-of-the-bac-three-eleven-project

 

[zebedee]

Recently acquired BAC 3-11 promotional material...

Zeb

 

[Caravellarella]

Dear Alertken, thank you for such a concise analysis. I still find it disconcerting that this topic implies some link between the Airbus A-300 and the BAC 3-11 as both were unrelated competitive designs. The only thing they have in common is that the UK Government of the time refused to fund participation in either. It is like saying the McDonnell-Douglas DC-10 is the ancestor of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar or vice-versa......

I feel like starting a new new topic on the Airbus A-300 :-\

Terry (Caravellarella)

Have two or three topics been merged into one? It's verging on non-sensical &, even now, I still find it impossible to see any link between the Airbus A-300 and the BAC 3-11 other than both were unrelated competing designs.

Terry (Caravellarella)
[/quote]

 

[zebedee]

I am thinking there is an argument for creating a separate 3-11 thread...

Zeb

 

[Caravellarella]

I am thinking there is an argument for creating a separate 3-11 thread...

Zeb

There was originally a separate topic for the BAC 3-11 Zeb, and three for the A300 predecessor/preliminary designs (one focusing on French pre-airbus efforts, one focusing on multi-national pre-Airbus efforts & one focusing on Airbus' three preliminary A300 designs that pre-dated the A300B), and one for the A300B derivatives; heaven only knows why they have been merged together; certainly makes a mockery of my own efforts in this regard on this site......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Jemiba]

Peace on earth and joy and delight to all men !

... heaven only knows why they have been merged together...

Indeed, as those threads were started more than 10 years ago and I have no idea about why, when and
who and no way to check.
But maybe there's a slight chance , that when they were merged, there may at least have been a slight kind of reason ?
Now there isn't anymore and the posts about the BAe 2-11 and 3-11 were split and those two
thread about the A300B were merged ((now to be found here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12365.0.html ).
If there are threads or posts still wrongly placed, just tell me !

 

[zebedee]

Thanks...! That makes a little more sense now

Zeb

 

[Caravellarella]

Peace on earth and joy and delight to all men !

... heaven only knows why they have been merged together...

Indeed, as those threads were started more than 10 years ago and I have no idea about why, when and
who and no way to check.
But maybe there's a slight chance , that when they were merged, there may at least have been a slight kind of reason ?
Now there isn't anymore and the posts about the BAe 2-11 and 3-11 were split and those two
thread about the A300B were merged ((now to be found here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12365.0.html ).
If there are threads or posts still wrongly placed, just tell me !

Thank you Jemiba,

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Mike Pryce]

Little known that the 311 was powered by pulse jets and designed by Alfred Hitchcock. At least that seems to be the case here:
https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/planes-bac-england-filton-cms-model-of-bac-3-11-l-r-news-footage/685934974

PS I thought there was a fuller 311 thread but various searches have not found it.

 

[Jemiba]

... PS I thought there was a fuller 311 thread but various searches have not found it.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4457.msg35350.html#msg35350

 

[Mike Pryce]

A-ha. Thanks. Searched for BAC 311, 3-11, three eleven, British aircraft corporation..... But not BAe because... we are better than that!

Can mods move post (and rename other thread so search finds it)?

 

[Hobbes]

I just finished reading Graziano Freschi's book 'The BAC Three-Eleven - The British Airbus That Should Have Been'.

The title doesn't do it justice, really. Freschi takes a look at the entire European airliner industry.
Chapter 1 - European commercial airliner developments from WW2 to 1970
Chapter 2 - The European Airbus project - from its genesis to the first flight of the Airbus A300B
Chapter 3 - The BAC 3-11 project
Chapter 4 - Civil aircraft projects in Europe since 1970
Chapter 5 - The principal factors behind the Government's 'Airbus' decisions in 1969 and 1970

Freschi's perspective is unusual for an aviation book. He is a financial specialist, and his book is focused on the political and financial background of the BAC 3-11, and the decline of the British commercial aviation industry in general.
The book is light on technical detail. You'll find the basic information, a general arrangement drawing of the BAC 3-11 plus a handful of photos of the engineering mockup, and that's it. While that's unfortunate for us, what emerges is a fascinating (if sobering) picture of the whole of the UK aircraft industry and the conditions under which it had to operate. The stats on the amount of launch aid paid by the Government for various airliners, and the return on those investments are an eye-opener, for instance. The picture that emerges is an industry and government weighed down by the albatross that was the Concorde project, which left little financial room for anything else.

Freschi's opinion is clear from the title, and in various places he does belabor his point a bit. But overall it's an interesting book, and a valuable background to the decisionmaking on many projects, civilian and military.

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1968.

 

[uk 75]

BAC Three-Eleven - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Very comprehensive article covering the ins and outs. The upshot seems to be that once Hawker Siddeley had the wing for the Airbus A300 it would have been pretty silly for the Government to fund a competitor.

 

[uk 75]

British European Airways and Rolls Royce lobbied hard for the 311. Lovely model on Ebay a while back.
Hawker Siddeley were supporting the European A300. Sorry no nice model only a bw montage.
In the end Rolls Royce got their way and BEA ordered the L1011 Tristar. Oh and Pacific Miniatures did another model for them.

 

[hesham]

From Aeroplane monthly 2014/12.

 

[ausdew]

BAC 2-11 AIRLINER POWERED BY 2xROLLS ROYCE RB211 JET ENGINES - EAGLE CUTAWAY 1967-10-21 - ART BY L ASHWELL WOOD:

https://flic.kr/p/Eap9Bd

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ausdew/25047922178/in/photolist-Eap9Bd-22uvrHh-2n2WwMG-Dbu4QS-2kEXs4s

 

[alertken]

These two schemes have evolved into son-of-V1000. But the blunder would have been to invest further in any of them. Freschi and other fans miss the essential point of any R&D investment, which is to pay off in volume production. Here: no way, Jose!

Timelines: BAC 2-11:
11/11/55: 1 prototype+6 V1000/RAF cancelled. No BOAC interest in VC7. Purge GRE's moan ("biggest blunder of all") from your mind. It was in his scope to go to Vickers Ltd Board for their money, but he knew better than to try. So he tried:
20/7/56: Viscount Major (to be Vanguard): BEAC orders 20, soon TCA 23. Vickers Ltd accepts PV spend, to avoid 7.5% Sales Levy on Treasury Launch Aid: why pay that cost-of-money when we have upfront deposits? Write off by Vickers Ltd: £16.7Mn. (by us £0).
14/1/58: BOAC orders 35 (Standard) VC10. V-A receives £10.25Mn Launch Aid. Yield on our money: £0.943Mn. Vickers Provided £20Mn. H.Evans,Vickers Against the Odds,Hodder,78,P86: “(Result) probably a breakeven position.”
9/5/61: new BUA launches BAC 1-11/200, which has Treasury Launch Aid. Sales follow inc to US, then stall as Viscount Customers TCA buys DC-9-14, Lufthansa, 737-100 (these are shocking losses).
What all this means is that Weybridge has no civil rain-maker status at BAC's Board, and then:
7/10/66: RR becomes proud owner of Bristol's 20% of BAC.
15/10/66: UK/France Govts reject Sud/BAC Galion as Euro Big Twin, for (unbid) Sud/HSAL/(to be)DASA) Super Galion, launched:
25/7/67: as A300 with RB207, Launch Aid all round (France, 100%).
BAC schemes (to be) 2-11, also pitches for workshare on Lockheed schemes.
15/12/67: Ministers decline BAC 2-11 Launch Aid (doing A300). BAC, nowhere with Lockheed (no Launch Aid), starts scheming (to be):

BAC 3-11:
29/3/68: RB211-22 exclusive on L-1011, 450 engines ordered at fixed prices, while also trying to develop RB207 for A300.
6/9/68 Weinstock/GEC buys EE Co, inc poison pill 40% of BAC; lets BAC spend £2Mn. 3-11 PV C.Gardner,BAC,Batsford,81,P182 and to seek Launch Aid by asserting capacity for 50% of £150Mn. R&D R.Payne,Stuck on Drawing Board,Tempus,04,P143.
9/12/68: A300 lapses; A300B emerges, Launch Aid assumed from 3 Govts.
16/4/69: UK quits A300B, to the joy of Treasury (£), BEAC (required to take L-1011), RR (L-1011). HS Group face civil Aero exit.
29/5/69: FRG accepts HSAL wing (18% of airframe R&D) to count towards its 50% of A300B and to pay 60% of DM250Mn. R&D Estimate, HS Group to find 40% +100% of any overrun. No Treasury Launch Aid: HS Group's exposure is PV.
2/12/70: UK declines BAC 3-11 Launch Aid: potentially cannibalising HS' plucky risk. Markets-Rule OK Ministers staring at RR bankruptcy.

G.Freschi,BAC 3-11,Tempus,06,P104 has denial of 2-11/3-11 Aid as Opportunities Lost. But 1-11 was losing to DC-9/737; VC10 sold none open-market (Ghana/EAAC: BOAC Associated Companies; BUA trying to curry political favour): heavy; rickety Support, languid Product Devt - Britcraft norm: why would 3-11 have done more? Sold to whom? Not AF, DLH, or in US versus the Triplets. (uk75 #29: ) it would have confused and cannibalised HSAL's A300B wing, to the benefit only of DC-10/L-1011.

(uk75 #30) 3-11 and BEAC, RR: there's what I say...and there's what I think.
RR could not develop RB199/MRCA, RB211/L-1011, RB211/BAC 3-11 concurrently, nor as a BAC equity-holder did they have capital capacity (or appetite) for their share of BAC 3-11 airframe R&D net of Treasury Launch Aid. MRCA+L-1011, that'll do nicely.
BEAC at Farnborough, 9/70 Show made a "provisional commitment" to 3-11, in part to deflect HS Group's efforts to extract an A300B order, and in part to dissuade new Ministers from optimism on BEAC's offtake from Air Holdings Ltd "order" for 50 L-1011s (a dodgy feature of UK efforts to land RB211 exclusivity: all puff). BEAC's 1964 Spec for a Big Twin envisaged an order of 6.

 

[Caravellarella]

Dear Boys & Girls, a recent eBay purchase. The British Aircraft Corporation's 1/24 scale model of an early version of the BAC 3-11 along with a full scale fuselage cross-section representation at the 1967 Paris Salon (or possibly the 1969 Paris Salon, can anyone confirm the date please?); © BAC - negative MP34402......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Hobbes]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9p_bvyodg

 

[Caravellarella]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9p_bvyodg

So many fallacies & false premises in this video!

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[red admiral]

If only the UK government had given industry a blank cheque they would have ruled the world. Definitely not like those times they spaffed it up the wall...

And there's definitely no UK aviation industry left today...

Unfortunately UK aviation history is usually written by ex-Industry types with a grudge or journalists who've been wined and dined by Industry. Objectivity ha

 

[iverson]

If only the UK government had given industry a blank cheque they would have ruled the world. Definitely not like those times they spaffed it up the wall...

And there's definitely no UK aviation industry left today...

Unfortunately UK aviation history is usually written by ex-Industry types with a grudge or journalists who've been wined and dined by Industry. Objectivity ha

And not just UK or aviation history, either.

 

[Hood]

I don't even have to open the link to smell the fallacies and false premises - the title alone says enough.

 

[Yellow Palace]

UK aviation history is usually written by ex-Industry types with a grudge

Funnily enough, it's always the last project they worked on, before it was cancelled and they were laid off, that was the world-beater Britain needed.