By: alertken - 8th January 2007 at 21:53
Trident 1 was screwed by BEAC’s 1950s/60s’ cartel lifestyle – first departure of the day LHR-Paris: BEAC, second: AF, and on, after you Claude, all revenues shared. If there was imbalance in any revenue season (say, AF Caravelle, v.BE Viscount) guess what? Revenues pooled. So frequency mattered, capacity and operating economics did not. UK also had foreign exchange constraints (to 1979!) on leisure pax volume – your Bank inscribed FF purchases in your passport, checking against a £50 annual ceiling. Yes, really! None of the above in US, so DH/RR first schemed DH121/Medway, which is what Boeing copied – 727 had baseline Medway till days before launch. BEAC said shorten it; DH/RR lacked the gumption to risk their own cash, but settled for what BEAC’s owner would Launch Aid. Spey, not Medway, which died. Trident 2E and 3B then just played catch-up with 727-200/200ADV.
1-11, launched by (F.Laker at BUA), had US at insemination, infused by (Vickers) Viscount penetration (subliminal lure of aeroplanes). Loss of TCA’s order to DC-9/10 was profound; so was liklihood of BAC’s trading failure after TSR.2(April,’65), before Saudi Magic Carpet (Dec.,1965). DC-9/30 and 737-100 were launched just then, so we again chased US Product Development, with 1-11/400 (winning American Airlines), then /500 (launched by {Govt. on behalf of} noisily resentful BEAC). No lust by BAC to put up 50% for 1-11/600, which could have paced DC-9/50, 737-200(ADV), and led on to a Tay/1-11 LITE – Boeing schemed just such a 737 before going with grossly overpowered CFM-56, derated to give spectacular longevity.
US Govt. did not do Launch Aid (50% of planned R&D paid by Govt. to be recovered in Sales Levy), but UK industry (and Airbus Industrie) have always claimed US does the same thing in different ways, inc. at State and City level. What US industry did (does) was enhance the product; they also commit their own money to long lead-time lumps for an unsold Lot, and stock up on bits before Certification: these things hook customers. Please can we on this site stop bleating about industry failures as Govt.’s fault.
By: PMN1 - 8th January 2007 at 19:19
Part of the above article below
Probably the one UK airliner that could have been a world-beater was the BAC One-Eleven. First to market ahead of its US rivals, the 737 and DC-9, this Rolls-Royce Spey-powered 80- to 100-seater was the spiritual successor to the Viscount, achieving significant export success from the start, including major sales in the USA. But a lack of long-term development – hindered by the absence of a suitable engine for growth – meant the One-Eleven is remembered more for the noise it generated than a huge production run.
The BAC twinjet was also a victim of politics. When the newly created BAe opened for business in 1977 (following the merger of BAC with HSA), the government was looking for a flagship civil programme to herald the new era. Rather than warm up the One-Eleven, which was still in production at Hurn near Bournemouth, it was decided to resurrect an all-new regional airliner design that had been launched in the early 1970s, but had been cancelled due to lack of demand. The aircraft was the HS146 (redesignated the BAe 146), and thus was created that paradox of modern civil aviation – a regional jet with four engines.
Would the BAC1-11 be capable of being updated into a competitive aircraft if it had been redeveloped rather than developing the HS146?
If so, what aircraft would it be competing against?
By: PMN1 - 7th January 2007 at 21:12
By pure coincidence, I have just drawn that book out of my local library.
The Trident was nobbled by being tailored far too close to BEA’s rather limited requirements and thus proving too narrowly specified to suit other customers. Indeed, by the time it entered service, it didn’t really suit BEA’s requirements either.
The same could be said for the Vickers VC-10.
That’s what the wikipedia article says which suggests that wikipedia is actually correct….it also says the original DH121 spec was about the same size as the later Boeing 727….
I wonder if the Wikepedia BAC1-11 article has some truth in it??
🙂
By: Eric Mc - 7th January 2007 at 20:40
By pure coincidence, I have just drawn that book out of my local library.
The Trident was nobbled by being tailored far too close to BEA’s rather limited requirements and thus proving too narrowly specified to suit other customers. Indeed, by the time it entered service, it didn’t really suit BEA’s requirements either.
The same could be said for the Vickers VC-10.
By: PMN1 - 7th January 2007 at 13:49
Richard Payne, Stuck on the Drawing Board, Tempus,2004. All there.
Books on order from Amazon, last one in stock apparently…
By: alertken - 7th January 2007 at 12:34
Richard Payne, Stuck on the Drawing Board, Tempus,2004. All there.
By: PMN1 - 6th January 2007 at 17:54
Does anyone have information on the designs that led to the HS Trident – the Bristol 200, Avro 740, Vickers VC11 and De Havilland DH121 (any more??).
By: PMN1 - 6th January 2007 at 16:27
Interesting articles in Flight
By: alertken - 6th January 2007 at 12:54
(& KLM DC-9/15 wef mid-66). In such engineering terms as approach speed Trident 1 was superior to 727-100…but, so blooming what. In those days UK industry did not understand who the customers are. Not pilots. Brick dunny solidity, hopeless economics, no concept of customer support. “Vickers had some poor experience with insufficiently developed or tested Brit ‘bits and pieces’ (were tired of) a Viscount (grounded due to) the failure of some £15 component with ‘salt across the terminals’(C.Gardner,BAC,Batsford,1981,P72: Vickers demanded) warranties of all equipment suppliers.(This)attitude, resented at the time, led to improved and more competitive engineering and after-sales service.” BEAC noisily demanded operating subsidies to compensate cost increment over US types. BAC/HSAL salesmen were not briefed on maintenance man-hours-per-flight-hour or cents-per-ASM because these were not Design Cases.
AOG? Ring Boeing out-of-hours and a bit was on its way. Ring Hatfield and they sent you off to try your luck at Jenny and Piles.
Sign In
January 5, 2007 at 7:31 pm