BAC Three-Eleven

British Aircraft Corporation

Industry	Aerospace
Founded	1960 in United Kingdom
Fate	Merged into British Aerospace in 1977
Headquarters	United Kingdom

Template:Refimprove

Template:Infobox aircraft The BAC Two-Eleven and BAC Three-Eleven represented two British airliner concepts developed by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) during the late 1960s. These initiatives originated from design efforts aimed initially at rivaling the Boeing 727-200 and subsequently challenging the proposed European Airbus project.

Throughout the 1960s, BAC explored options for successor aircraft to its existing models like the Vickers VC10. Early investigations focused on a larger double-deck variant of the VC10, informally called the Super VC10. When this proposal failed to secure support—especially after British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) opted for the American-made Boeing 747—BAC redirected its attention towards a smaller airliner concept derived partially from its successful One-Eleven. This led to the Two-Eleven design, intended to seat between 191 and 208 passengers, envisioned as an alternative to the multinational European collaboration then known as the Airbus. Despite this, the Two-Eleven failed to generate significant industry interest, and with the British government endorsing the Airbus consortium, the project was discontinued in 1968.

After Britain's withdrawal from the Airbus programme in 1969, BAC revisited and updated its Two-Eleven concept, resulting in the Three-Eleven—a wide-body airliner comparable in size, weight, and range to the original Airbus design. In August 1970, Sir Anthony Milward, chairman of BEA, expressed strong support for the Three-Eleven initiative. Motivated by this endorsement, BAC sought funding from the Ministry of Technology in November 1969. Nonetheless, financial backing was withheld due to concerns over foreign policy impacts of competing directly with Airbus and Britain's European allies, alongside historical patterns of British airliners facing competitiveness challenges and exceeding development budgets. On 2 December 1970, Frederick Corfield, then Minister for Aviation Supply, announced in the House of Commons that official government support for the Three-Eleven would not be forthcoming. Subsequently, BAC quietly abandoned the project in the following year.

Two-Eleven

In the 1960s, European aircraft manufacturers showed growing interest in developing a new generation of airliners to succeed the first-generation models such as the British de Havilland Comet and Bristol Britannia, the French Sud Aviation Caravelle, and the American Boeing 707. The British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) was actively engaged in exploring the needs of both civil and military customers, considering various strategies to address these demands.

By 1964, BAC and its main domestic competitor, Hawker Siddeley, had conducted thorough evaluations regarding the potential for producing extended versions of their current airliners—the Vickers VC10 and the Hawker Siddeley Trident respectively. Early in 1965, BAC put forward plans for two distinct double-deck variants of the VC10, commonly referred to as the Super VC10. However, it became evident that substantial financial backing from the British government—amounting to tens of millions of pounds—would be essential for the project’s success. Aviation historian Derek Wood noted that this larger double-decker model, intended to be powered by the proposed Rolls-Royce RB178 turbofan engine, held promising commercial potential. Nevertheless, due to a lack of funding support, the programme did not advance, and British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) eventually chose to acquire the competing Boeing 747 instead.

While evaluations of the Super VC10 continued, BAC, BOAC, and the British government were simultaneously investigating other options. Political momentum was building in favor of European collaboration on aircraft development projects. The British government showed enthusiasm for joint ventures such as the 'European Airbus' initiative. In response to growing interest in Airbus concepts, BAC developed alternative proposals centered on a smaller airliner derived from the successful BAC One-Eleven regional jet.

Consequently, in 1966 BAC officially introduced its latest concept: the Two-Eleven. This airliner was designed to accommodate between 191 and 208 passengers, placing it in a size category comparable to the American Boeing 727-200 and bearing similarities in configuration and scale to what would later become the McDonnell Douglas MD-80. The Two-Eleven was planned to be powered by two Rolls-Royce RB211 high-bypass turbofan engines under development at that time, each delivering approximately 30,000 pounds of thrust. Development costs were estimated at around £50 million. While British European Airways expressed support for the Two-Eleven project, the British government did not endorse it; at this stage, government priorities favored Airbus development and financial resources were insufficient to back multiple competing projects simultaneously.

In an effort to enhance its appeal among operators and secure broader industry backing, BAC sought to upgrade the Two-Eleven’s capabilities. By August 1967, BAC announced that the aircraft would feature improved airfield performance due to a 20 percent increase in engine thrust over the original specifications. Despite these improvements, interest in the proposal remained limited. As a result, by 1968, BAC quietly discontinued further development of the Two-Eleven concept.

Three-Eleven

In 1968, the British government chose to withdraw from the Airbus project, expressing doubts about its economic viability and market potential. BAC was reportedly pleased by this development, viewing it as a positive sign since it was not involved in the European Airbus initiative (unlike competitor Hawker Siddeley) and faced limited future airliner projects as the One-Eleven program was concluding. Seizing this moment as an opportunity, BAC revisited and significantly updated its earlier Two-Eleven design, culminating in the Three-Eleven proposal.

The Three-Eleven made its public debut at the 1967 and 1969 Paris Air Shows. This widebody aircraft was comparable in size, weight, and range to the original, somewhat smaller European Airbus that was still in early development stages at that time. It was widely believed that certain factions within the British government, particularly those connected to Rolls-Royce, supported the Three-Eleven concept as a contingency plan should the European Airbus project falter.

Depicted through drawings, artist renderings, scale models, and a partial wooden mock-up, the Three-Eleven appeared as an enlarged version of the One-Eleven. According to Wood, the design featured twin RB.211 engines initially rated at 43,000 pounds of thrust (later increased to 50,000 pounds), mounted near the rear fuselage on either side of the tail cone beneath a T-tail configuration. The aircraft’s maximum takeoff weight was initially estimated at 267,000 pounds but later revised to 302,000 pounds. It could seat up to 245 passengers in an eight-abreast layout with a 34-inch pitch or accommodate as many as 300 passengers at a tighter 30-inch pitch. The intended range for this payload was at least 1,500 nautical miles.

In November 1969, BAC submitted a request for financial backing from the Ministry of Technology to support the Three-Eleven project. The company reported having between 40 and 50 options on orders for the prospective aircraft and estimated development costs at £140 million, requesting half of this amount from the government. BAC anticipated obtaining type certification by late 1974. Optimism for government funding was bolstered by Tony Benn, then Minister of Technology and a Labour Party member known for his favorable stance toward the Three-Eleven. While awaiting the government's decision on funding, BAC invested £4 million of its own capital to further develop and refine its proposal.

Insufficient backing and project abandonment

The continuation of the Three-Eleven programme hinged on what was then referred to as "government launch aid." After withdrawing from the Airbus consortium, the British government was, in principle, positioned to endorse the Three-Eleven project. Between 1969 and 1970, British European Airways (BEA), a government-owned carrier, expressed its readiness to operate the proposed aircraft, showing a clear preference for it over the competing Airbus design. In August 1970, BEA's chairman, Sir Anthony Milward, publicly voiced confidence in the Three-Eleven, emphasizing that without an order for this aircraft, BEA would be compelled to invest £180 million in acquiring foreign-built planes to meet its fleet requirements.

Beyond BEA, several other airlines voiced support for the Three-Eleven proposal, including the privately held Court Line Aviation, although this airline also indicated equal willingness to operate the European Airbus. However, no firm orders materialized since the design had not been finalized and the programme itself had not officially launched. By this point, the Three-Eleven project was embroiled in multiple controversies:

• The primary technical dispute focused on aerodynamic concerns. Critics argued that the design was susceptible to experiencing deep stall conditions and other operational challenges such as loading difficulties and centre of gravity complications during actual airline service. Additionally, there were significant worries about the aircraft’s potential overweight status. The configuration was also considered unsuitable for freight or combined passenger/freight use due to inherent layout limitations. Notably, no widebody aircraft ultimately adopted this design approach; for example, the Ilyushin Il-86 reverted to a conventional layout before reaching production.

• Another contentious issue involved Britain's foreign policy stance and had two opposing perspectives. On one side, American aircraft manufacturers cautioned that European government subsidies supporting competing aircraft could negatively affect transatlantic trade and diplomatic relations. Conversely, Britain's prospective partners within the European Economic Community (EEC) expressed concern that pursuing the Three-Eleven—direct competition to the European Airbus project they endorsed—would cast doubt on Britain’s loyalty to the EEC, especially as Britain was actively seeking membership at that time.

• A further debate centered on government support for the domestic aviation sector. Critics contended that previous state-sponsored airliner projects often lacked competitiveness and failed to meet airline demands effectively. Specifically, experiences with the Vickers VC10 and Trident suggested that initial cost estimates were deliberately minimized to secure government backing, thereby obligating further financial support later when additional funding became necessary. Rival firm Hawker Siddeley publicly challenged BAC’s development cost figures for the Three-Eleven, dismissing them as underestimated and proposing substantially higher projected expenses.

These various concerns contributed to delays in securing government launch aid. With a general election imminent, Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s Labour cabinet opted to postpone decisions until a new government obtained a fresh mandate. The election brought a Conservative administration into power. Unlike Labour, this new government was keen on integrating Britain into the EEC and held ideological opposition to state intervention in industry. Nevertheless, shortly after assuming office, Edward Heath’s cabinet found it necessary to nationalize Rolls-Royce to prevent its bankruptcy—a significant instance of state intervention. Offering launch aid for the Three-Eleven would have represented another major intervention and signaled opposition to EEC commitments; consequently, it was quietly removed from political consideration.

By then, the Airbus A300 design had been finalized and garnered a modest but adequate number of orders while production of its first aircraft was underway. Simultaneously, pressure mounted from Heath’s administration on BEA and private British carriers—especially Court Line—to purchase another model: the American Lockheed L-1011 TriStar. Since TriStars were powered by Rolls-Royce engines, this procurement supported recovery efforts within a sector of British aviation that had recently received substantial government assistance. Historian Wood speculated that had the British government funded the Three-Eleven programme, BAC’s investment in Rolls-Royce through development of the RB.211 engine might have significantly aided Rolls-Royce’s financial stability and potentially prevented its bankruptcy altogether; however, he acknowledged this as personal conjecture.

On 2 December 1970, Frederick Corfield, Minister for Aviation Supply, announced in the House of Commons that official government sponsorship for the Three-Eleven would not be forthcoming. This declaration effectively marked the demise of the project as other potential stakeholders were discouraged by governmental withdrawal of support. Under these circumstances, prospects for sales were bleak and no commercial investors appeared willing to finance development. By 1971, BAC had quietly ceased further efforts on the Three-Eleven initiative.

See also

• Airbus A300
• Lockheed L-1011 TriStar
• McDonnell Douglas DC-10
• List of civil aircraft

External links

• Template:Cite periodical