BAC 3-11 cross-section

The flight international Archive is a good source of info, try this link:-

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/search.aspx?ArchiveSearchForm:search=bac%20311&page=1&ArchiveSearchForm:fromYear=1966&ArchiveSearchForm:toYear=1971

The 2-11 was a kind of 1-11 on Steroids, it kept the single isle concept but unlike the 3-11 no metal was cut.

Just a query from a curious ignoramus. Was there a 2-11 project?

Oh yes, forgot to answer the original question!!! BAC 311 diameter 6.05m, Airbus A300B 5.64m. A 32ft fuselage section was under construction when the project was cancelled.

Thanks!

Compare DC-10 602 cm, Tristar 597 cm, Il-86 608 cm, B-777 619 cm.

Tristar and DC-10 can and do fly 10 abreast. But the original economy seating was 8 abreast for both.

Does the size of BAC 3-11 look something similar to Tristar 500?

Oh yes, forgot to answer the original question!!! BAC 311 diameter 6.05m, Airbus A300B 5.64m. A 32ft fuselage section was under construction when the project was cancelled.

Rear mounted engines leave a clean wing which gives better field & cruise performance. However there can be a structural penalty affecting Empty weight. The figures below would seem to confirm this.

The 311 MTOW was 137500kg, payload was 31,700kgs for a range of 2,510km
the A300B MTOW was 132000kgs, payload 28,000kg for a range of 2,200km

I thought I read once, though may not have been correct, that the use of rear engines rather than wing nacelles was originally due to the Empire routes being served. With the emphasis being on ‘hot and high’ airports the cleaner wing was better and the higher engines didnt take in as much FOD from dusty runways.

MH

What was the British obsession with rear engined jets? About the only one that wasn’t would have been the BAe/HS/DH 146 – and that has a T tail. 125, 111, VC10, Trident…

From memory, the RB203 Trent was one of the casualties of the 1971 Rolls-Royce bankruptcy.
Had the engine gone ahead, it would have powered the HS146’s predecessor, the HS136. And that was rear-engined, if I remember rightly.
Rear engines a uniquely British obsession? I’m not so sure. But I do think the political decision not to provide launch aid for the 311 probably saved BAC from itself.

If your interested in what happened to the British Aviation Industry and the 311 programme in particular, you can’t beat this book!! Alot of technical info and photo’s of the 311 mockup, such as it was!!

The 3-11 to have been in the same category as the A300, design proposals for a wide-body cabin, 8 abreast seating 245 pax tourist class, 9 abreast seating 270 for the I.T. market.

Did A300 inherit the exact 3-11 cross-section, or was it different?

What was the British obsession with rear engined jets? About the only one that wasn’t would have been the BAe/HS/DH 146 – and that has a T tail. 125, 111, VC10, Trident…

and the Comet 🙂

Roger Smith.

What was the British obsession with rear engined jets? About the only one that wasn’t would have been the BAe/HS/DH 146 – and that has a T tail. 125, 111, VC10, Trident…

Best place for those noisy old Viper, Spey and Conway’s is down the back, and it makes for a really nice clean wing. 😉

What was the British obsession with rear engined jets? About the only one that wasn’t would have been the BAe/HS/DH 146 – and that has a T tail. 125, 111, VC10, Trident…

..An artist’s impression of the 3-11, cribbed from the history of BAC by Charles Gardner. The 3-11 to have been in the same category as the A300, design proposals for a wide-body cabin, 8 abreast seating 245 pax tourist class, 9 abreast seating 270 for the I.T. market.

Chumpy.