BAC One-Eleven E-Book

Stephen Skinner

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 351

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

In August 1963, one of the best-selling aircraft of British civil aviation, the BAC One-Eleven, took to the skies for the first time. With an order book for sixty aircraft, more than half were from the United States, which was an unprecedented situation for a British civil aircraft. The first project for the newly formed British Aircraft Corporation, the One-Eleven was wholly designed and built by BAC, and remained in production throughout the entire seventeen-year history of the organisation, performing strongly even when profits were at a low. After flying commercially in Europe for the last time in March 2002, here the One-Eleven is celebrated in style.

Leseprobe

Contents

Title Page

Acknowledgements

Preface

1 The First Flight – Tuesday 20 August 1963

2 The British Aircraft Corporation and the One-Eleven Project

3 A Technical Description of the Aircraft

4 The Challenging Flight Test Programme

5 The 200 Series in Service

6 The 400 Series Development, World Tours and in Service

7 At last, the Stretched One-Eleven – the 500 Series

8 The 500 Series in Service

9 The Hot Rod – The One-Eleven 475 and 670

10 The Stillborn Civil and Military Proposals

11 Romania and the One-Eleven – Licence Production

12 The Tay One-Eleven – A Tortuous Story

13 Notable Accidents in Service

14 Bizjets and Test beds

15 Serving the World into the Twenty-First Century

16 Conclusion – What held the One-Eleven Back?

Addendum

Appendices

1 Flying the One-Eleven 500

2 On Flight Deck of European Aviation BAC One-Eleven G-AZMF Hurn-Turin-Hurn

3 Aircraft Data

4 Table of Type Numbers

5 BAC One-Eleven Production List

6 Chronology of the BAC One-Eleven

7 Preserved One-Elevens

8 One-Eleven Test Pilots

9 Escape Hatches

Bibliography

Plate Section

Copyright

Acknowledgements

The idea of this book has long been in my mind and I have found it a stimulating project which has given me the enjoyable opportunity to meet and discuss the aircraft with many people who were involved with it.

I owe a debt of gratitude to a number of people not least John Prothero Thomas, former Marketing Director of BAC, who gave me access to his lecture ‘Evolution of a Workhorse – the BAC One-Eleven’ which I found of particular assistance in drawing together and writing the concluding chapter. Also to Chris King who, as a BAC Senior Flight Test Observer and later Chief Flight Test Engineer for BAe on the Tay One-Eleven, was a fund of information on many detailed matters of the flight testing. Chris introduced me to Bill Hurley, former Dee Howard Director of Flight Test and Certification, who provided information from the Dee Howard standpoint and lent me some of the photographs in this book. On the Tay One-Eleven I was also fortunate to make contact with Ken Goddard, author of The Rolls-Royce Tay and the BAC One-Eleven, with whom I had a number of helpful discussions.

My researches also drew me to the One-Eleven Test Pilots Roy Radford, John Lewis and Peter Baker, who kindly gave me their time and hospitality, the late Dave Glaser, and not forgetting Johnnie Walker (very much alive!) whom Chris King kindly introduced to my wife and I, and who regaled us with many funny stories.

I was fortunate to meet Rolando Ugolini who, as a very skilled designer, kindly drew illustrations of the aircraft, especially the unflown examples.

I would like to thank Ken Dyer, Commercial Manager of European Aviation, who generously arranged for two One-Eleven flight deck flights and gave me several hours of his time at Hurn Airport. Also Steve Costello, European Aviation’s Simulator Engineer, who let me ‘fly’ the aircraft and just stopped me from crashing at ‘Shannon’!

At the Brooklands Museum, Albert Kitchenside and Jack Fuller of the Technical Library gave me immense support, particularly on all the stillborn One-Eleven developments, as did their colleague Mike Goodall at the Museum’s invaluable Photographic Archives. Heinz Vogel, former Chief Aerodynamicist on the One-Eleven, also filled in some areas which I needed to clarify with regard to the later developments during the 1970s. The team at Airbus One-Eleven Support at Filton answered questions pertaining to aircraft still in service.

Scott Harrison of the Bournemouth Daily Echo’s library allowed me access to their well-organised archives and photographs, which gave an interesting and significant local view on the aircraft and the Hurn factory.

Mike Phipp, author of Bournemouth International Airport, published by Tempus, helped me on many points as well as updating me on local One-Eleven movements.

I have been able to access a number of photographic archives which I have given credit to in the text and should like to acknowledge my gratitude to Flight International for allowing me to reproduce an article on ‘Flying the One-Eleven’ as Appendix 1.

Lastly I would like to pay tribute to all the editorial support and encouragement that my wife Jane has given throughout the writing of this book.

Preface

My enthusiasm for the BAC One-Eleven stems from the beginnings of my interest in aviation in 1963. I had the good fortune to grow up in Bournemouth not many miles from Hurn (now Bournemouth International) Airport where there was a selection of interesting aircraft movements including British United Heralds and Bristol Freighters, BEA Viscounts, Airwork Fleet Requirement Unit Seahawks and Meteors. But the most fascinating part of the airport to me was the Vickers-Armstrongs factory on the north side of the airport.

At the Vickers-Armstrongs factory (later re-badged as British Aircraft Corporation (Weybridge Division) Hurn), the last of the Viscounts were in production – to be replaced by the One-Eleven on the production line. From early August 1963, the One-Eleven prototype could be seen carrying out tests and running its engines. Then, as now, there was a very distinctive engine start noise, which I could even hear at my home some five miles distant. The weeks passed in anticipation and then, on 20 August, the maiden flight took place, which was the culmination of a very long and exciting day at Hurn. Yet only two months later the tragedy of the prototype’s crash stunned the workers and executives at the manufacturers and in the locale. But the company recovered from this severe blow despite other setbacks delaying the test programme. Eventually completed, the One-Eleven was certified and entered service on 9 April 1965.

Eager to know and see more, I would visit the Hurn hangars at weekends to see the beautiful machines in production. From the drab factory, One-Elevens would emerge pristine in beautiful liveries for the airlines around the world, including Braniff, Mohawk, Aloha, American Airlines, Court Line and many others.

The remaining years of the 1960s were the main development phase of the aircraft, with the maiden flight of the stretched 500 series in 1967 followed by a rising curve of more and more deliveries and, three years later, the first flight of the 475 series – also from Hurn. Through all those years, and after, I kept notes and collected information, still visiting the factory regularly. By chance I even saw the first flight of the last production machine just prior to the Hurn factory’s closure in 1984.

I had high hopes of the Tay re-engined One-Eleven and was glad to see an example demonstrated at Farnborough 1990, but was disappointed that this last chance to build on the strength of a fine British aircraft was soon to wither. One-Elevens soldiered on in diminishing numbers during the early years of the twenty-first century. Regrettably, hopes that the fiftieth anniversary of the One-Eleven’s maiden flight on 20 August 1963 would be celebrated by a One-Eleven in flight failed to come to fruition as the last serviceable example, QinetiQ’s ZH763 made its last flight on 26 April 2013 to the Classic Air Force Collection at Newquay.

1

The First Flight – Tuesday 20 August 1963

There was a feeling of eager anticipation in the air at Bournemouth (Hurn) Airport as crowds clustered by the roadside and around the factory waited for the first flight of the One-Eleven. It was a long wait during the warm, showery day. Shortly before 10.00 a.m., the third Viscount for Chinese Aviation (one of six of the last Viscounts built at Hurn), G-ASDS, flew to Luton to collect Hunting Aircraft executives who were to view the flight. At 10.30 a.m. the prototype, still in the flight shed, was weighed so that accurate calculations could be made for lift off and landing speeds, and two hours later she was handed over to the pilot.

For the occasion, Chief Test Pilot, BAC, Jock Bryce and Mike Lithgow, Deputy Chief Test Pilot for Vickers-Armstrongs Aircraft were to pilot it. Dick Wright and Tony Neve, Flight Test Observers, were also on board. But it was not until 2.00 p.m. that there was a slow-speed taxi run followed by a delay for the change of a brake unit. In the meantime, a Hunting Jet Provost, XR669, arrived from Luton piloted by ‘Ollie’ Oliver, ready to act as a chase plane during the first flight.

The dignitaries, amongst whom were Sir George Edwards and Air Marshal Sir Geoffrey Tuttle, respectively BAC Weybridge Managing Director and Vice-Chairman, Freddie Laker, Managing Director of British United Airways, the crowds and the press waited. The time was broken up by more showers and an aerobatic routine flown by Rolls-Royce’s own Spitfire, G-ALGT. The afternoon had passed and still the crowds waited. Between 6.00 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. there were two high-speed taxi runs along runway 26 during which the nose was lifted and reverse thrust used for the first time. The One-Eleven then returned to the flight shed for fuelling while a snowplough drove up and down the main runway brushing off the large pools of water formed by the heavy showers.

Finally, in the early evening, the chase Jet Provost took off as the prototype G-ASHG positioned itself at runway 26. Then with that roar that was to become only too common to Hampshire’s (later Dorset’s) skies, Jock Bryce lifted it off into the calm, blue air and at 7.42 p.m. it was airborne after a run of approximately 3,150ft.

The first flight crew with the BAC One-Eleven prototype G-ASHG (c/n 004) at its roll out at Hurn on 28 July 1963. Left to right: Mike Lithgow, Deputy Chief Test Pilot, Vickers; Tony Neve; Dick Wright; Flight Test Observers: Jock Bryce, Chief Test Pilot, BAC. Both Mike Lithgow and Dick Wright lost their lives with the crash of the prototype on 22 October 1963. (BAE SYSTEMS)

The BAC plant at Hurn on 20 August 1963. The prototype BAC One-Eleven, G-ASHG (c/n 004), being towed into position prior to its maiden flight. On the left is one of the last Vickers Viscounts G-ASDS, which had made a return flight to Luton that morning to collect BAC staff from the former Hunting factory to watch the flight. (BAE SYSTEMS)

G-ASHG landing on runway 26 at 8.08 p.m. at Hurn Airport after a twenty-four-minute maiden flight on Tuesday 20 August 1963. Although painted in British United colours, ’SHG can be distinguished from the early BUA aircraft by the additional wording BAC on the tail and the painted registration almost hidden from view under the engine nacelles. (BAE SYSTEMS)

G-ASHG cruised at 220mph at 8,000ft in a westerly direction over to Yeovil with the undercarriage down, accompanied by the Jet Provost. At 8.00 p.m., as the light started to fade, it appeared in the Hurn circuit, the Jet Provost in formation on its left wing tip, and touched down at 8.08 p.m. As the sun set, the four crew disembarked by the BAC flight shed and were greeted by Sir George Edwards, waiting executives and factory workers. At the press conference Jock Bryce praised the aircraft and its ease of handling.

On that day the success of the project looked certain, with sixty orders on the books from major airlines in the United States, the UK and other parts of the world, while the only competitor, the Douglas DC-9, appeared to be lagging behind and was only in the early stages of development.

Over the next twenty-one years 235 One-Elevens were to be built in the UK and all but thirteen of them were assembled and made their first flights from Hurn. Between 1982 and 1989 nine more were assembled in Romania, making a grand total of 244.

2

The British Aircraft Corporation and the One-Eleven Project

The One-Eleven played a considerable role in the whole story of the British Aircraft Corporation itself. It was the only aircraft wholly designed and built by BAC and remained in production throughout the entire seventeen-year history of the organisation, reaching its sales peak when profits for the Corporation were at a low ebb.

The project was the first for the newly formed British Aircraft Corporation, which came into being in January 1960 when the Boards of Vickers-Armstrongs, English Electric and Bristol Aircraft agreed to set up of a joint company. BAC was to consist of their collective aircraft manufacturing companies while their non-aviation sections would remain wholly with the parent company. In May 1960, the first act of the new Corporation was to buy the aircraft interests of the Hunting Group. The reasons for the merger and acquisition were that the Government had been insistent that the large number of companies, which made up British aviation in the 1950s, could not continue and so amalgamations had to take place. As a result, by the end of 1960 there were only two major airframe manufacturers, BAC and Hawker Siddeley, and two major aero-engine manufacturers, Bristol Siddeley and Rolls-Royce.

BAC had a large number of aircraft in production and various projects under consideration. In 1960 there was uncertainty on the civil side for Viscount and Britannia production was coming to an end, while the Vanguard had been a major disappointment receiving only forty-three orders and making a loss of £17 million for Vickers-Armstrongs. The Vickers VC10, a long-haul jet, was in production but there was no new aircraft to replace the short-haul Viscount, where Vickers had established substantial market penetration and made sales of 436 aircraft.

A Long Gestation

As long ago as 1955, Hunting undertook a design study known as the P107, a four-abreast thirty-seater with two Bristol Orpheus engines, a moderately swept fin and a cruciform tailplane. The target price at £330,000 was cheaper than the Viscount 700. Hunting even registered the prototype as G-APOH in July 1958 and this was presumably forgotten about, for the registration was only cancelled in January 1964.

In 1955, Hunting undertook a design study known as the P107, a four-abreast thirty-seater with two Bristol Orpheus engines, a moderately swept fin and a cruciform tailplane. Hunting even registered the prototype as G-APOH in July 1958. (Rolando Ugolini)

At the time of BAC’s acquisition of Hunting, the project was appraised by the Vickers project team and believed to be a sound design. It had grown into an 80ft-long, five-abreast seater with two Bristol Siddeley BS75 engines of around 7,000lb thrust, a 500mph cruise speed, a range of 600 miles and a ‘T’ tail. This project was given the designation BAC107 and it was the intention for further design project work to be carried out by Hunting at Luton and by Bristol at Filton, with Vickers concentrating on the VC11 design which was a shorter-range version of the VC10. Hunting was to design and build the tail and wings, Bristol to design and build the front fuselage and also carry out final assembly. A system was set up to ensure that Vickers’ civil turbine airliner experience, which because of the Viscount was by far the most relevant and extensive in the world, to be fed into the combined design efforts at Hunting and Bristol. Vickers’ experience of the marketplace was used to conduct extensive surveys into the probable needs of the market, naturally concentrating on existing Viscount operators. Weybridge studies in early 1960 suggested a world market of 600 aircraft with eighty in the USA. The studies stressed the importance of maintaining a price below £500,000. The role of this small jet was seen as:

– A prestige aircraft where big jets would not operate effectively

– Able to offer increased service frequency at low cost on existing jet routes

– Operating in less developed countries where some important routes required jets, e.g. South America

– As a corporate aircraft

BAC carried out extensive surveys during late 1960 to test the market. Eighty-nine airlines were visited in all parts of the world and some sixty indicated interest in the project. Names such as Braniff, Eastern, Ozark, Aloha, Sabena, Aer Lingus, Trans-Australian Airlines and Ansett etc., were mentioned as good prospects. The feedback from these visits resulted in changes to the project which inevitably increased the weight and the All Up Weight (AUW), which went up from 48,500lb to 52,000lb. A ‘double-bubble’ cross section to accommodate more baggage was specified, as was a ventral door, and the early idea of a simple pneumatic system was abandoned. The BS75 engine was, however, beginning to puff rather badly and an ‘overspeed’ system to allow 7,550lb of thrust was being offered to maintain a reasonable airfield performance.

At this time the newly formed British United Airways (BUA) entered the field with a requirement for a jet Viscount 800 replacement capable of operating trooping runs to Malta, services to West, East and Central Africa and the burgeoning Inclusive tours market. The critical mission was Malta-Gatwick where the Viscount 833 could only carry 9,500lb of payload. Meanwhile in the USA, Braniff and Continental became immediate sales prospects and Braniff in particular required a genuine short haul ‘bus stop jet’ with the intention of operating extremely short sector distances with very rapid turn rounds, in contrast to the relatively long ranges required by BUA. The BUA specification led to increased design weights and the need for additional fuel, which was located in the centre section of the wing. Braniff on the other hand did not require a ventral stairway, as they would often expect to use the aircraft from a jetway, which BUA would not. So there were differing requirements that the BAC team had to satisfy.

In March 1961, the decision was made to concentrate on using the Rolls-Royce Spey and to take the engines and pods almost directly from the Trident. Testing of the Spey involved 14,000 hours on the bench plus 100 hours in a Vulcan. After the Trident flew in 1962, a flying test-bed became superfluous.

The BAC 107 was an 80ft, five-abreast seater with two Bristol Siddeley BS75 engines of around 7,000lb thrust, a 500mph cruise speed, and a range of 600 miles. Hunting was to design and build the tail and wings, Bristol to design and build the front fuselage and also carry out final assembly. (Rolando Ugolini)

The choice of the Spey was to be both a critical and a limiting factor in the aircraft’s later development. In the 1960s, no British manufacturer would have chosen a foreign-made engine for a major project. All that was to change in years to come with the Rolls-Royce RB211 powering the Lockheed Tristar and Avco Lycomings for the BAe 146 (later RJ/RJX). Though there had been serious interest in a ‘double-bubble’ fuselage cross-section, BAC decided that a circular section was best.

It was on this basis that the project, as the BAC One-Eleven, was launched. This coincided with the rejection of the VC11 project by its most likely customers, and a decision in May 1961 by the BAC Board to go for the small jet. The Corporation set down an initial production batch of twenty aircraft and abandoned the more complex VC11 project. Fortunately, BAC managed to get the VC11’s £9.75 million Government launch aid transferred to the new design. The design work was now centred on Vickers at Weybridge, with Hunting at Luton designing and manufacturing the wing and the tail design and manufacture being handled at Filton. The assembly line was planned for Hurn.

The Launch and the First Order

Freddie Laker and British United Airways were striving to make their mark as the largest British independent airline just as BAC was seeking customers if it was to proceed with the One-Eleven. Laker and Geoffrey Knight, then BAC’s Marketing Director, were already good friends and eager to co-operate. Once the decision had been made in principle to purchase, then came a period of hard bargaining over the performance and the price between two tough and well-seasoned businessmen. The final price was apparently agreed at Sandown races, a mere £740,000 per aircraft.

The new order at Hurn. One of the last Viscounts, part of an order for six from China, alongside the fuselage of the first production One-Eleven for British United, G-ASJA. (BAE SYSTEMS)

On 9 May 1961, BAC held a press conference to launch the new jet together with its first order for ten series 201s with options for five more from Freddie Laker’s British United Airways. Quite a coup for a major British airliner to be launched with the announcement of an order from Britain’s major independent airline, and not BEA or BOAC. The schedule was ambitious, with the first flight planned for the second quarter of 1963, certification by mid-1964 and deliveries to BUA that autumn. Sir George Edwards stated before the One-Eleven flew that BAC saw a market of 1,000 aircraft and that they would be happy with 40%, i.e. 400 similar to the Viscount’s production, leaving a sizeable market to any other entrants. It is noteworthy that modern marketing methods were employed before production began; the market had been widely tested and uncovered a spectrum of requirements. The One-Eleven was not designed for a single customer, e.g. British United, unlike the manner in which the Trident and VC10 were respectively bespoke, tailored to BEA and BOAC needs. As a result this new jet had a far wider appeal from the outset.

At this point production of the smaller BAC 107 was still planned for the following year but at the end of 1961 the decision was taken to drop the project. With hindsight, this can be seen to be prudent when one considers the challenges that the One-Elevens were to present BAC.

BAC Scores an American First!

Both Ozark Airlines and Frontier Airlines placed early orders for the aircraft. However, in those days of over-regulation the US Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) blocked the sales stating that the airlines would need Government subsidies to run jets. This appears to have been a protectionist ploy since both airlines later ordered American-built DC-9s without hindrance! No such obstacle was to stop the second customer, Braniff International of Dallas, Texas, which placed a firm order for six series 203s with options on six more on 20 October 1961, the first time a US airline had ordered a British airliner from the drawing board.

In March 1962, a mystery customer placed an order for eight, later increased to ten series 202s. In BAC publicity the order was always referred to as from an ‘undisclosed customer’ so it was understandable that people assumed it was an American airline anxious to avoid trouble with the CAB. But shortly after the first flight the order, which actually came from Western Airways, a Karachi-based organisation, was discreetly cancelled.

Mohawk, another American carrier, ordered four 204s on 24 July 1962 and though the CAB endeavoured to stop them, Mohawk persevered and succeeded in placing their order. Kuwait Airways ordered three and Central African Airways two on 26 September 1962. The orders were rolling in and there were no competitors. The One-Eleven owed its initial success in the American market because it was rightly seen as the first true short-haul jet. Others flying at that time, such as the Comet 4B or Caravelle, had none of the One-Eleven’s quick turn-round facility. Both of these had the same narrow fuselage cross-section, a window provision that denied the flexibility of differing seating pitches, poor freight loading facilities and could not function independently of ground power.

In early 1963, Braniff firmed up its option on the second six aircraft and took out an option on two more while Aer Lingus, the Irish national airline, ordered four 208s on 3 May 1963 for delivery in 1965.

However, in April 1963 the One-Eleven no longer had the field to itself. The Americans had caught up and launched the ninety-seat DC-9-10, which was soon to pick up orders. Douglas had wisely chosen a slightly larger fuselage cross-section than BAC. A ‘double-bubble’ section, giving a slightly wider cabin and freight hold and two rear-mounted Pratt & Whitney JT8Ds powered the aircraft, which were heavier than the Spey but provided much more thrust. But Douglas was dismayed when the following month one of the USA’s major airlines, American Airlines, made a surprising choice and selected the British product.

American Airlines and the 400 Series

Quite early in the design development history of the 200 series, American Airlines became interested in a new concept of short-haul operations. Up to this point air travel in the USA and Europe had been the preserve of the wealthy. Now, with the post-war prosperity and faster communications, transcontinental air travel was an affordable expedient and compared favourably with travelling overland.

Talks with American Airlines started at the Farnborough Show of 1960, became of serious technical interest in 1961 and virtually continuous technical/contractual negotiations then ensued until American placed an initial order for fifteen aircraft valued at more than £14 million on 17 July 1963. First delivery was scheduled for July 1965 with completion of the order by the end of that year. This was the first time one of the American ‘big four’ trunk operators had purchased a British aircraft, let alone off the drawing board. The New York Times comment was that the order assured the British aviation industry of a substantial lead in the production of short-haul jets.

Sir George Edwards put it succinctly when he said, ‘American Airlines chose the British aeroplane because it does the job which they want done and because it is available at the right time. We decided to go ahead with the One-Eleven for British United Airways over two years ago because we believed in the aeroplane and its timing. Too often we have been blamed for being late. This important order has been won because we were early. The fact that we have sold 60 aircraft, 31 of them in the United States is a pretty good indication that we were right.’

Asked to comment on American’s decision, a Douglas official said, ‘We regret American Airlines has elected to buy an airplane built abroad and which we consider to be an inferior product to ours.’

Aeroplane magazine stated that American’s decision was due to the technical merit of the One-Eleven, BAC’s experience with short-haul aircraft, unrivalled outside the USA, and because the British jet would be in service two years before the Douglas DC-9. In reality much of this two-year lead was to be eroded.

The 400 Series

In May 1963, in preparation for the American Airlines order, BAC had announced two developments, the 300 and 400 series, which could carry heavier payloads over longer range. They were outwardly almost identical to the 200 series aircraft except for an additional cabin window at the front on each side, redesigned nose wheel doors and lift dumpers in addition to spoilers on the wings.

The 400 series required a very large number of changes, including higher design weights to give greater range, and were higher-powered with 11,400lb thrust Spey 25 Mk 511-14 engines instead of the 10,410lb of the 200 series. These larger Speys provided better airfield performance and the landing distance was improved by the incorporation of lift dumpers and the fitting of Hytrol anti-skid units to the brakes. These changes gave the necessary guaranteed airfield performance for the One-Eleven to be able to use La Guardia, New York’s domestic airport.

The Question of Fitting Pratt & Whitney Engines

American Airlines carefully considered requesting BAC to exchange the Speys for de-rated versions of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-5 engines as initially fitted to the DC 9-10. BAC produced two comparable specifications and contracts, one with each power unit, but American eventually decided to stay with the Rolls-Royce engines. Factors which undoubtedly affected this decision were that initial experience on the JT8 in their Boeing 727 was not encouraging, and the much heavier power plant caused significant weight increases, with the need to fit wing leading edge devices to keep the landing performance comparable.

American did, however, introduce 281 design changes into the aircraft, principally to include more sophisticated equipment, compatible with their own fleet. These improvements increased the operating weight when empty by over 2,500lb. Interestingly, the Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) of the American Airlines aircraft was set at 78,000lb to give some leeway below the arbitrary ‘80,000lb rule’ below which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would certificate with two-crew at that time, because that was the MTOW of the DC4. The design was, however, capable of 87,000lb MTOW for which the FAA would have insisted on a three-pilot crew. Fortunately the FAA’s 80,000lb two-crew ruling was abolished in 1966 and from that time the 300 series classification was dropped and only the 400 series classification used.

The 300 Series

As a result of the alteration in the FAA ruling and the redesignation of all higher weight aircraft as 400s, only a small number of 300s were built. Customers were Kuwait Airways (which leased them before delivery to British Eagle) and Laker Airways. The 300 series retained most of the original British ancillary items of the 200 series. The better performance, longer range and more sophisticated 400 series opened up a new market for BAC in Central America, the Philippines, Germany, Argentina and Brazil, and started the long association with Tarom of Romania.

The Planning of Production

With the go ahead in March 1961, the BAC board agreed to lay down a batch of twenty to include two non-flying test airframes.

The production was shared among four BAC factories; Hurn built the forward and mid-fuselage sections and carried out final assembly, Filton constructed the rear fuselage and tail, while Weybridge built the centre section, undercarriage and wing skins. Luton manufactured wings, ailerons and flaps but with the unfortunate closure of that site in December 1966, this work passed to Weybridge.

Hurn

Of 235 British-built One-Elevens, Hurn assembled 222 starting with the prototype G-ASHG in 1963 and ending with G-BLHD in 1984. Including Viscounts, this totals 501 turbine-engined airliners completed at Hurn. Parts were also made for the Romanian One-Elevens, of which twenty-two were to be assembled. In the event only nine ROMBAC One-Elevens were competed, with one 500 and one freight-door-equipped 475 left incomplete in 1992.

Design and production breakdown. Initially the wing mainplanes were built and assembled at Luton, but with the closure of the plant in 1966, this work passed to Weybridge. (BAE SYSTEMS)

The BAC factory at Hurn. First used as a temporary Flight test centre in 1951 while a runway was built at Wisley, Vickers-Armstrongs/BAC/BAe built 156 Varsities, 279 Viscounts and 222 One-Elevens and six Strikemasters at Hurn, a grand total of 663 aircraft. In the top left are the two assembly halls and in the lower left centre the Flight shed where completed aircraft were based during test flying. (BAE SYSTEMS)

The starting point for the Hurn factory was the need in 1951 for flight test facilities for the Valiant while a tarmac runway was laid at Wisley. Vickers took over hangars recently vacated by BOAC and based their Valiant and Viscount prototypes there briefly. Weybridge was then overloaded with work, so production of the piston-engined Varsity military-trainer was switched to Hurn where 156 were built.

Whereas prototypes and test aircraft flew from Hurn to Wisley and were based there for all experimental flight testing, production flight test was carried out from Hurn. Sometimes the period between first flight and delivery was as little as two days.

Weybridge-Built One-Elevens

Thirteen One-Elevens were assembled at Weybridge in two batches between 1966 and 1970. In early 1966 a production line was set up at Weybridge to allow Hurn to concentrate on the American Airlines’ 401s and make up for the slack caused by the TSR2 cancellation. A batch of six aircraft was produced in 1966 starting with D-ABHH, an executive making its first flight in January. These machines flew from the short Weybridge runway to Wisley on their maiden flights.

G-ASHG, being rolled out of 107 hangar where it was assembled, painted in the colours of its first customer, British United Airways. It was the 277th turbine-engined airliner to be rolled out at the Hurn plant, since there had been 276 Viscounts before and there were still three more for China to come. (BAE SYSTEMS)

Throughout the 1960s, One-Elevens made frequent flights into Weybridge as well, especially development models for refurbishment to delivery standard. When British Eagle collapsed in late 1968, all its One-Elevens were flown into Weybridge and stayed there for some time. In 1969–1970 a second batch of seven more One-Elevens were completed there, ending with D-ANNO, a series 414, originally intended for TAE of Spain but sold before delivery to Bavaria Fluggesellschaft. On 19 December 1970 it made its first flight, which was the final first flight of an aircraft completed at this famous site. The last VC10, 5H-MOG, for East African Airways, had flown out in the previous February.

In the first years of production the plants turned out a great number of One-Elevens. Between 1965 and 1967, 100 were delivered and between 1968 and 1971 another 100. After that there was a considerable slowing in orders with only thirty-five delivered between 1972 and 1984.

The Roll Out of the Prototype

To honour British United’s brave decision, the BAC-owned prototype, G-ASHG, a series 200, was painted in their blue and white colours and rolled out to great acclaim at Hurn on 28 July 1963. There was a large press presence, which praised BAC for what appeared to be a wonderful start to a programme, with sixty orders from eight airlines around the globe. This was a far better achievement than the other British civil jets then in production, the VC10 and the Trident.

3

A Technical Description of the Aircraft

The BAC One-Eleven is a twin turbine short-haul jet transport with rear-mounted engines and a ‘T’ tail configuration. It has a retractable tricycle undercarriage with hydraulically powered brakes and nose wheel steering. The aircraft utilises hydraulic power for flight controls, with the exception of the ailerons, which are operated by a cable and servo-tab arrangement. For the electrical system, two engine-driven generators supply power, together with an additional generator powered by the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) mounted in the tail cone. Two Rolls-Royce Spey 512 turbofan engines power the aircraft, each rated at 10,410lb static thrust in the initial 200 series. Later series have higher-powered Speys.

Quick Turnaround

In its early days the One-Eleven was marketed as the ‘bus stop jet’, perhaps a throwback to the original BAC107 concept. With that in mind, BAC designed the aircraft to be a big improvement on the successful Viscounts and Convairs in terms of turnaround time on the tarmac and to be as user-friendly as possible. To prevent delays caused by lack of ground equipment the airliner was made self-sufficient. Provision of an on-board Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) made ground power units superfluous. Airsteps, waist-high freight bays, fuelling and servicing points all located ergonomically. Refuelling would only take ten minutes.

The first test fuselage (c/n 002) entering the water tank at Filton for pressurisation tests on 25 August 1963. This view clearly shows the freight hold doors and ventral stair apertures. (BAE SYSTEMS)

Structure

The structure was based on the fail-safe concept. This meant that the failure of a single main structural member would not cause a collapse of the structure as a whole or reduce the strength below that required to sustain flight loads. That philosophy was applied universally to the aircraft. Flaps, fin and tailplane were conventional structures and the same was applied to the fuselage except that some machined frames were used, and two panels at the wing joint were machined from the solid.

Structural elements of the BAC One-Eleven had a proven corrosion-free track record. Wet assembly and other corrosion inhibitive techniques performed during build were comparable with standards achieved only in later years by other manufacturers, making this one of the ‘cleanest’ airframes among long-serving types.

During the complete BAC One-Eleven programme, for all series, no flight test data caused the primary structure to be strengthened from the original design. In fact, strain gauge and pressure plotting tests showed it to be, generally, marginally too strong. So there were regular announcements of increased operating weights resulting in improved payload and range.

Fuselage

The fuselage was fabricated using conventional semi-monocoque construction, comprising a stressed skin supported by frames and stringers. It was built in three sections; front, centre, and rear. The centre fuselage incorporated a torque box to which the wings were attached, and was sealed because of its function as a fuel tank. Entry door and window apertures, which would otherwise act as discontinuities in the fuselage structure, were reinforced using vertical posts and internal doublers. The rear fuselage, with the engine mounting frames and fin frames, was built as one unit with the fin and the tailplane mounted on the top of the fin.

Wings

The wings were of conventional torsion box design and were swept back and tapered. The wing was of triple spar configuration, having integrally machined stringers on upper and lower skin. The wing tip was fabricated from lighter gauge skin; the ribs gave the wing section its shape, and provided torsional rigidity to the structure. An integral fuel tank was formed in the wing and included a surge tank. The rear spar at the wing root provided a mounting point for the main landing gear. Further outboard, the rear spar also provided attachment points for flap track mounting brackets, spoiler hinge fittings and aileron mounting structure. Five ribs were bolted to the front spar, which formed part of the mounting arrangement for a detachable leading edge.

Static tests on a second test airframe (c/n 003) showed that structure had considerable reserves of strength. Failure of the wing occurred at 117% of the ultimate load allowing for increases in operating weights of the aircraft. The two pictures show the start of the test and just prior to failure, with the wing deflected by 6ft. (BAE SYSTEMS)

Systems Philosophy

The basic systems philosophy was to split each system into independent halves, each with its own power source. All systems were capable of operation from one-half system only, but in normal operation both halves were used simultaneously.

Fuel System

The integral fuel tanks were formed by sealing the main wing torsion box during manufacture. These two tanks had a capacity of 2,200 imperial gallons. The wing centre-section torsion box tank, holding 850 imperial gallons, was standard on all versions except the 200, for which it was an option. Additional tanks ranging from 350 to 1,332 imperial gallons were available, fitted in the rear of the forward freight hold.

All the fuel in the system was available to either engine or the APU. Single point fuelling was installed with an access point on the lower fuselage just below the forward section of the wing root. Most models were fitted with fuel jettison vents positioned on each wing trailing edge.

Hydraulics Systems

Hydraulic power was used to operate the landing gear, flaps, spoiler/airbrakes, tailplane trim, rudder, elevators, nose wheel steering, brakes, elevator and rudder artificial feel units, yaw damper, ventral/forward stairways and windscreen wipers.

There were two distinctly separate systems both operating with its own reservoir and should either of the engine-driven pumps fail, an auxiliary electrical pump would maintain the system. If a fault occurred there was no drill required, the crew only had to isolate the system. Items that control the airliner, e.g. elevators, rudder, etc. were independently operated by both systems. Other items were provided with adequate safeguards, for example if one hydraulics system was lost then the inboard spoilers would cease to function, but the outboard would remain in operation and vice versa. Likewise the landing gear was designed to free fall and lockdown in the event of loss of hydraulics, and the braking systems had accumulators to halt the aircraft in the most adverse conditions.

Electrical Systems

The aircraft employed a constant frequency a.c. system supplied by two generators driven by engine-mounted constant speed drive and starter units. In addition a third generator, shaft-driven by the APU and identical to the engine-driven channels, was provided for use when the aircraft was on the ground. The system was designed to give priority to the engine-driven generator. The APU generating channel and the external supply channel automatically disconnected when either one or both engine-driven generators were operating. Similarly the external supply channel disconnected when the APU generating channel was in use.

From its inception, the aim of the design was that no single fault could cause permanent loss of both generating channels. Ground a.c. power was derived either from the APU-driven generator or from an external source, through an external supply socket on the left side of the aircraft nose. The aircraft was provided with two lead-acid batteries for starting the APU and for providing stand-by power under extreme emergency conditions. A static inverter, operated from the d.c. essential bus-bar, was used to supply selected loads when no generated power was available. In the event of complete loss of a.c. power all essential services were provided for forty-five minutes.

Air-Conditioning and De-Icing Systems

There were two independent pressurisation and air-conditioning systems, one supplying the flight deck and the other the cabin. Engine warm air was used to de-ice the wings, tail and power plant intakes.

Oxygen Systems

One-Elevens were all fitted with two oxygen systems, one for the flight deck and one for the cabin. Some of the aircraft were fitted with drop down emergency passenger oxygen masks at time of manufacture and all those remaining in service in later years were modified to have them.

Landing Gear