Talk:BAC One-Eleven/Archive 1

Colour
The comment about colour fidelity is incorrect - the aircraft depicted is really pink! Court Line had a variety of colour schemes - the yellow/orange/red mentioned is only one - there was also a pale green, a pastel purple, and the pink shown. As a kid of 10 I used to trek up to Luton airport on my bike just to watch these colourful jets come and go, I used to think they were very groovy!! In the light of this I hope you won't mind if I delete the comment. GRAHAMUK 12:28, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pics
Graham, I've taken the liberty of uploading your Court Line pic as a thumbnail and altering the pic code from the Table version to the currently preferred Div version. Two reasons for the thumbnail ........ firstly, its size is 9K against 40K for the big version and so will load much faster for those with telephone connections, secondly, it cannot cause text squeeze for those using 800 by 600 screen size even though the picture is embedded in the text. If you have any objections at all to what I've done, just revert to how it was before, I won't mind! Adrian Pingstone 10:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No problem for me - article is better for it. Incidentally, I don't use the table code for images if I put them in myself - I uploaded the pic for the court line article and it got added here too, but the table code was another edit. GRAHAMUK 23:42, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Proper title
Can't we use the REAL name of this plane as the title which is the British Aircraft Co. BAC-1-11? 202.95.200.12 06:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We would if it was the real name ! MilborneOne 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will the IP User 202.95.200.12 please refrain from using the wrong aircraft name, the correct name is the BAC One-Eleven as used throughout the article also refer to an example of the aircraft type certificate . MilborneOne 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a bit of a browse through the web and found that there is a Yahoo group for the aircraft which favours the name "BAC 1-11"; on the other hand, definitive 'biographes' (one by Stephen Skinner, another by Malcolm Hill) bear the title "BAC One-Eleven". Other-language wikipedia articles also favour "BAC One-Eleven", usually giving "1-11" as a variant; the German article is called "BAC 1-11" but the German "British Aircraft Corporation" article lists the "BAC 1-11", remarking "better known as One-Eleven". The variant favoured by User:202.95.200.12, i.e. "BAC-1-11", is very rare. "BAC 1-11" googles significantly more than "BAC One-Eleven", bhe name on the aircraft type certificate is the one to go with, surely? In view of the fact that the article is already called "BAC One-Eleven" I recommend that we should stay with that (also in the infobox), include the alternative version in the introduction and leave it at that. --TraceyR 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have at least two printed sources (and a couple I haven't checked), that state the original project designation was BAC.111. Both state that BAC One-Eleven is a marketing designation that has apparently become official. Neither source uses either "BAC 1-11" or "BAC-1-11" anywehre in the text. It seems to me that BAC 1-11 is just shorthand for "BAC One-Eleven". I'm going to put together my sources in a day or two, and, combined with the TC info, add it to the lead. I'll try to get the page semi-protected first so we won't have the reversion problems again. - BillCJ 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, this source Airworthiness Directives for 1967 refers throughout to BAC 1-11! Perhaps the marketing people realised late in the day that in "One-Eleven" they had brand name! I'm not sure that an internal project designation is as notable as the name under which it became known to operators and the public. --TraceyR 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to claim notability, just quoting the sources! - BillCJ 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My 1980 Illustrated Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft (Editor-in-chief Bill Gunston, ISBN 0-89673-077-8) calls it the BAC One-Eleven. --John 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The proper name IS BAC-1-11! If it is to be called "One-Eleven", that means that the Boeing B-747 would be called the "Seven-Four-Seven" and the Airbus A-310 would be called the "A-Three-Ten"! 202.95.200.12 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The others have all provided sources. Where's yours? - BillCJ 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I did some searching on Google for the proper name. When I typed in "BAC-111", I got thousands of results. When I typed in "BAC One-Eleven", I got fewer results. That means the plane is more known with the numbers rather with words. I also asked a lot of people about the real name. Most said "BAC-1-11" or "BAC-111".

--202.95.200.12 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got more info about the plane's real name. I once read a book called "Tales of Real Survival" and read about the incident on British Airways Flight 5390. It never mentioned that the plane was a "BAC One-Eleven" but a "BAC-1-11".

--202.95.200.12 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've got more info again. These two websites rarely mention "BAC One-Eleven" and commomly use "BAC-1-11". Home Page of the BAC-1-11 BAC-1-11 History

--202.95.200.12 02:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your point that the appellation is disputed may be valid, but your sources are not helpful. If you'll note, your second source titles the page "BAC One-Eleven," and "One-Eleven" is used in the text a number of times. As to your first source, "It has finally arrived! My first ever attempt at a website!" is not a stirring endorsement of a site's professionalism. Find a copy of the plane's flight manual, and that would be more convincing. Sacxpert 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) The first site calls it the "BAC 1-11", not "BAC-1-11", and I'm pretty sure some of the other sites your quoting don't use the first dash either. Second, the heading on the second site is "BAC One-Eleven History". not very good proof of your point.


 * You could keep doing this forever, and not convince any of those who have responded here. So why don't you propose a page move (the proper way to rename), and we can settle this once and for all. If you gain a clear consensus to move the page, fine. But if not, I would hope you'd drop the issue. - BillCJ 03:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article should be renamed as per what the official designation of the aircraft was. Some cases in point, just to throw some spanners in the works.


 * If you look at this site most airlines referred to the aircraft as the BAC 1-11; Aer Lingus being a notable example which referred to the BAC One Eleven; TAROM being an airline which referred to both (but majority of the time as the BAC 1-11.
 * The aircraft, as far as I can ascertain, which was built in Romania has always been called the Rombac 1-11 +
 * The UK CAA refers to the aircraft as the BAC One-Eleven and [http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=summary&aircrafttype=bac&dereg=true although the type certificate as mentioned above, has the designation as the BAC 1-11
 * The ICAO gives the aircraft the code of BA11 and calls it the One-Eleven
 * IATA is the same as the ICAO
 * And here's something interesting, the British National Archives, makes mention of the BAC 1-11, BAC 111 and BAC One-Eleven, and this is all in official capacity.

This seems to be a tough one --Russavia 05:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I have added unref tags to the article, as there is only a single reference/source of information in the entire article, and that link is a flight sim link (not a valid source surely). I would think that once properly referenced, the naming issue will work itself out. --Russavia 05:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't a genuine problem here really. Surely the most important issue is that anyone looking for the article will be able to find it. There are redirects from "BAC 1-11" and "BAC 111"; all we need is a redirect from "BAC-1-11", a very rare variant (and any others that fertile imaginations can come up with) and all options are covered. Let's not try to be more Catholic than the Pope! Of course, the opening paragraph needs to mention "BAC 1-11" as a common variant too. --TraceyR 05:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

90.224.89.58 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Sorry to interrupt! I have red the hole conversation about "if it's got the real name" or not. I made some researches to; take a look at the production pictures from BAC. You can see that all aircrafts has got the name BAC One-Eleven on their tale, and don't forget to view the original operational manual for the Aircraft. In the manual the aircraft is called BAC One-Eleven.
 * Can you provide a link or two? Thanks --TraceyR 06:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A 1964 two-page BAC advertisement in Flight for the "One-Eleven" here;  and a 1977 one here:


 * ... and a 1963 Flight article on the One-Eleven here: and an earlier 1961 article here:


 * ... a large 1964 Flight article on the One-Eleven's entry into service here:


 * ... and a 1986 Flight article on the Dee Howard proposed One-Eleven re-engined with Tays here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One-Eleven emergency loss of pressure ATC transcript
While looking for information on 1-11/One-Eleven I came across this ATC transcript - it had me on the edge of my seat, so I thought One-Eleven buffs might also find it interesting. --TraceyR 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

next to last British aircraft flown by BA: not true
Near the bottom, the article says that when it was retired in 1998, it was the last British made aircraft until the Avro RJ.

I modified the sentence to include the Concorde. They were not retired until 2003. The BA Concordes were made in the UK, not France. Archtrain 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that there were BA One-Elevens at Gatwick when I was working airside there in the summer of 1999 - they were easily the noisiest aircraft there. They may not have been BA ones, but there were definitely One-Elevens flying from there then, as you couldn't help noticing them when they took off.

Article missing info on ROMBAC 1-11 engine

 * With reference to the last reason, Rolls-Royce repeatedly refused to allow its Tay engine to be used on Romanian One-Elevens.

So which engine did ROMBAC 1-11s use? -70.233.148.177 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speys. See the first paragraph of the section: "It also involved Romanian production of Spey engines..." - BilCat (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

N999BW
Despite being challenged User talk:AirportExpert has continued to add an entry in operators for N999BW owned by the TriStar History & Preservation. The aircraft has not flown since October 2013 and should be considered a display aircraft. None of the references claim it is flyable. Suggest it should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Guess it's all relative
This article states that this low production airliner was "widely used" - with only 200 or so produced, that's a pretty bold claim. DC-9 was widely used, B737-200 was widely used - BAC 1-11 not so much (indeed only remember flying on one two or three times over the years out of the million or so air miles we've ridden around on commercial jets over the last half-century).

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BAC One-Eleven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201150810/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AG.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AG.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)