 |
| ROMBAC 1-11 [WikiMedia image by Luc Willems] |
Romania when led by Nicolae Ceauşescu attempted to manufacture British BAC 1-11 airliners in the late 1970s: it was hoped to manufacture up to 80 aircraft for the so called "third world countries" including the Rolls-Royce Spey engines. The aircraft was redesignated ROMBAC 1-11.
Interestingly, the Romanians invested heavily to manufacture western aircraft engines. The Romanian manufacturer Turbomecanica S.A. web site says:
"The best available manufacturing equipment was purchased, and licenses to manufacture and build Viper 633-41, Turmo IV C engines and PUMA helicopter gearboxes and rotorheads were obtained from Rolls-Royce, Turbomeca and Aerospatiale respectively. Due to the lack of reliable local sources for special components, accessories, and tooling, the facility was required to produce all this material on a self-sufficient basis, but at the expense of efficiency. The size of the company was gradually increased, to accommodate an estimated capacity of 4,400 employees....In 1980, a license was obtained ... from Rolls-Royce for the manufacture of the Spey 512-14 DW civil turbofan, powering the Romanian built variant of the BAC-111-500 airliner." [1]
When the Romanians selected the BAC 1-11 to licence built [2], it was a failure already: Boeing 737, McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Fokker F-28 had dominated the market. The airliner proved to be noisy, underpowered and uneconomical.
"Between 1972-1982 only 35 1-11 were built...This [The last delivery] took place on 30 May 1984. A total of 235 aircraft had been delivered from Hurn and Weybridge." [3]
"There were two reasons why the production line was kept open [1972 onwards]...: first, BAC hoped that Rolls-Royce would develop a quieter and more powerful version of the Spey engine, making possible further One-Eleven developments; second, throughout the early part of the period Romania was negotiating to buy the entire One-Eleven programme and transfer production of the type to Bucharest." [4]
As the Rolls-Royce was recovering from the bankruptcy, it did not design quieter and more powerful versions of the Spey engine. However, the Romanians insisted to manufacture the BAC 1-11!
"The first flight of a Rombac 1-11 YR-BRA took place on 18 September 1982. Production continued until the 9th and last ever new production 1-11 YR-BRI came off the line. It's first flight took place in April 1989. It was delivered to Romavia in 1991...2 further airframes remained incomplete in Romania." [5]
At the end, the Romanians procured airframe and engine licenses of a failed design and manufactured just 9 airliners without any export success! What a huge financial loss! George Friedman of STRATFOR wrote recently:
In Europe Stage III noise abatement regulations took effect in March 2003 and effectively grounded the infamously noisy BAC 1-11 there, although it continues to fly like in very small numbers in other parts of the world:
Finally, on 12 February 2010, the European Aviation Safety Agency revoked the Type Certificate for the BAC 1-11. [8]
I think the ROMBAC 1-11 disaster is a brilliant example of "irrational" industrialization attempt: nationalism and wishful thinking blind eyes. Simply procuring licenses by pouring money at the expense of lower life standards for the citizens is no substitute for decades long research and development work in many areas! The developed countries know very well the developing countries look for shortcuts and exploit it skillfully.
Final note: it looks like that as of 2009 all the ROMBAC 1-11's are retired.
"...as of November 2010 there are less than 10 aircraft still in service and many of these only fly occasionally." [7]
Finally, on 12 February 2010, the European Aviation Safety Agency revoked the Type Certificate for the BAC 1-11. [8]
I think the ROMBAC 1-11 disaster is a brilliant example of "irrational" industrialization attempt: nationalism and wishful thinking blind eyes. Simply procuring licenses by pouring money at the expense of lower life standards for the citizens is no substitute for decades long research and development work in many areas! The developed countries know very well the developing countries look for shortcuts and exploit it skillfully.
Final note: it looks like that as of 2009 all the ROMBAC 1-11's are retired.
[4] Wikipedia article.
[6] http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101115_geopolitical_journey_part_3_romania?utm_source=GJourney&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101116&utm_content=readmore&elq=d1f11346bb8846b6b2a94972d409a8f8
[7] http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/bac1-11jet.co.uk%20History.htm
[8] http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/Design_Appro/EASA%20Certification%20Information%202010-1.pdf [7] http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/bac1-11jet.co.uk%20History.htm
5 comments:
Oguz,
I feel you are generally right to attribute the Rombac fiasco to nationalist pride and voluntarism. I also feel, however, that your astonishment that Romanians insisted on the One-Eleven at the expense of better alternatives is misplaced.
The reason for Romanian insistence on the One-Eleven was that the country had no other choice if it wanted to manufacture and certify a reasonably modern jet airliner.
It speaks volumes that, in attempting to find anything to license-produce, in the early 1970s, Romania approached the German-Dutch VHW-Fokker consortium to licence-build the VFW 614 airliner. The '614 was an extremely bizarre failure of an aeroplane whose licence-production in Romania would have been an even greater embarrassement than the One-Eleven.
When Romanian-British talks on the One-Eleven began in the early 1970s, the One-Eleven was very far from a failed programme. It had a modest but solid operator base with an excellent geographical distribution. In fact, a 134-seat One-Eleven 700 growth version was offered at the time. This failed to materialise not so much because Rolls-Royce did not produce the re-fanned Spey 67 (as claimed in Wikipedia), but because the project failed to attract a crusial BEA/British Airways launch order for reasons more to do with the airline, rather than the aircraft.
Throughout the 70s, the British kept promising the Romanians that a re-fanned Spey would be made available, and hence that Romania would be able to manufacture a technologically up-to-date and commercially attractive airliner.
In the end, a refanned Spey (the Tay) did indeed emerge, but Rolls-Royce intentionally dragged its heels in allowing the One-Eleven to be re-engined with it. Ultimately, a single One-Eleven was fitted with Tays, yet the Romanians were not allowed any part of the action; instead, a small US company was involved, and it eventually ran out of nerves and money in pursuit of the project.
Viewed from this perspective, it is Britain that is to blame for making hollow promises, not Romania for believing them...
There is another and vaguer set of reasons for Romania's inexplicable (as you see it) love of the One-Eleven. Though recalcitrant, the country was an ally of the USSR. The Soviets viewed any aviation dealings between East Bloc countries and the West with great concern. Dealing with the US industry (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas) would have brought all of the Kremlin's wrath upon the head of Ceausescu. Dealing with second-ranking Western European companies like BAC/BAe or VFW-Fokker, hovever, would have incurred much less Soviet wrath. This more-or-less cemented the choice of the One-Eleven.
So why not the Fokker F.28 Fellowhip -- the sole other Western European alternative (after all, Romania had approached VFW-Fokker over the 614)? Because by the eraly 70s the little Fokker was proving more promising than the One-Eleven and hence the Dutch would have asked an even higher price from the Romanians for the rights to manufacture it.
I trust this is of interest and puts your incredulity that the Romanians should pursue the One-Eleven into context.
Thanks for your comment. My basic point is a country like Romania should not have licence built an airliner:
I think the ROMBAC 1-11 disaster is a brilliant example of "irrational" industrialization attempt: nationalism and wishful thinking blind eyes. Simply procuring licenses by pouring money at the expense of lower life standards for the citizens is no substitute for decades long research and development work in many areas! The developed countries know very well the developing countries look for shortcuts and exploit it skillfully.
With hindsight 1-11 looks to be major blunder. However, as you detailed, it might be looking a bit promising then. But, I don't believe there were "better alternatives": if the project is successful, the original developer would have kept it unless it was moving to another project etc. I think believing in the export success of 1-11 to "third world countries" is very naive and risking so much resource for such a slim chance is "fatal" for any developing country like Romania.
Yes, yet again I entirely agree that the voluntaristic headlong rush into brave new technological territory is absolutely no substitute for painstaking and prolonged organic national development. "Reverse engineering" has been tried and has had its successes (and failures), but your point is entirely sound.
With hindsight the belief in Third World exports is, of course, naive. Yet, in the late Seventies/early Eighties, China (a political and commercial friend to Romania) was very different to what it is today. Without being an advocate of Ceausescu's inane daydreams, I would venture to suggest that the Romanians did at the time have a genuine opportunity to export some One-Elevens there. China's state-owned "monoairline" of the period had many dozens of obsolescent Soviet Ilyushin 18 turboprops that needed urgent replacement. China was (in the classical Socialist mould...) chronically short of hard currency. Romania would have been the ideal source of "soft-currency" aircraft that were -- if not the latest scream of technology -- at least passably modern.
It wold have taken clairvoyant skills to have foreseen the actual course of events: the Chinese adoption of capitalism and modern banking and the subsequent large-scale commerce with the USA. (It was the USA which ultimately replaced the ancient fleet of Ilyushins with US-made MD-80s, 737s and 757/767s...)
Your second comment, just like the first one, is very informative. Thanks...I didn't know the Romanians particularly eyed China. However, having no genuine 1-11 development capability and, I guess, weak aviation overlooking bodies unlike FAA and CAA, they had to be very lucky to achieve export success!
By the way, when I have time, I will post several short writings on other similar disasters.
Actually, the Romanians were careful to obtain British CAA certification for each One-Eleven they built. In fact, in the late Seventies the influential Flight International magazine regarded the certification aspect of the deal as arguably more important than manufacturing aspect. (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1980/1980%20-%200890.html?search=romanias%20one-eleven).
Accounts of other "reverse engineering" and "technology transfer" disasters would indeed be most illuminating!
Post a Comment