L-1011

[CopilotDoug]

I'm curious why the L-1011 didn't catch on as a freighter as well as the DC-10 did. While FedEx is still pulling DC-10-10s out of the desert and converting them to the MD-10, there are loads of L-1011s parked. Do the L-1011s have short time/cycle limits on the airframe and they're just burned out? Thanks

 

[fr8r]

I am not sure, but I can give you what my dad told me about the L-1011. He said it was a big piece of $h!t. United airlines considered buying some of them decades ago. I remember my dad getting an L-1011 pin and stating that they might be getting them. Several years later, I asked why they never bought one and he just said they were garbage. So, that being said... I don't think it was a very effective airplane. That is just my take.

 

[CopilotDoug]

To my understanding, alot of the bad PR was due to the first generation RB-211 engines. Rolls-Royce never subscribed to the KISS method. Nothing that a quick STC wouldn't be able to fix, I would think. Maybe throw some newer RB-211s on there? The reason I ask this is because back when the noise regs came out and the 707s were getting retired left and right, a man came out and bought a bunch of 707s for dirt cheap prices. His company came out with hushkits for the engines and he remarketed the 707s with good success, making alot of money in the process. I am not sure if he still has one of the airplanes as his personal aircraft.

 

[av8n]

I am not sure, but I can give you what my dad told me about the L-1011. He said it was a big piece of $h!t. United airlines considered buying some of them decades ago. So, that being said... I don't think it was a very effective airplane. That is just my take.


Every Deltoid I have talked to who has flown the L-1011 - absolutely loved to fly the aircraft.

There was a spoiler design system that allowed the aircraft to stay on the glideslope without having to pitch the aircraft's nose up/down.

Pertaining to the engines - now that might be a different story.

I was told on numerous occasions that "it was the best flying heavy aircraft ever designed."

 

[GogglesPisano]

Everyone I know who's flown the L1011 has said it was their favorite and way ahead of it's time.

 

[Bill Mostellar]

I was on the panel for a couple of years at Delta - absoultely awesome airframe. It was so far ahead of its time!

Unfortunately, the RR engines had some difficulty during the first few years so the type never caught on. Once that was solved, other options were available.

The DLC (spoilers) were awesome - on final the pitch angle didn't change and you looked through the same spot on the windshield at the runway. Very Solid!

I miss that airplane.

I wish you success!
Bill

 

[Spooky 2]

I am not sure, but I can give you what my dad told me about the L-1011. He said it was a big piece of $h!t. United airlines considered buying some of them decades ago. I remember my dad getting an L-1011 pin and stating that they might be getting them. Several years later, I asked why they never bought one and he just said they were garbage. So, that being said... I don't think it was a very effective airplane. That is just my take.

Having flown them both about an equal amount of time I can testify to the incredible flying qualities that the TriStar had over the DC10. Yes the early generation RB211's were troublesome, but then the #2 engine on the TriStar never blew up and took all the hydraulics out with it, nor did the Lockheed ever get grounded by the Feds. Both good airplanes, but with a different set of personalities.

 

[pilotyip]

I don't think there was ever a pure cargo version of the L-1011, was it not always in passenger configuration? They quit building it in the early 80's, where as McD built a cargo version of the DC-10 into the early 00's. The DC-10 was made viable in the marketplace due to the failure of RR to deliver on engine performance. United and AAL were suppose to be L-1011 customers, but backed out and bought DC-10 when Lockheed could not deliver airplanes on time. Few people will argue over the L-1011-'s flying characteristics; it was a fine airplane.

 

[Spooky 2]

I don't think there was ever a pure cargo version of the L-1011, was it not always in passenger configuration? They quit building it in the early 80's, where as McD built a cargo version of the DC-10 into the early 00's. The DC-10 was made viable in the marketplace due to the failure of RR to deliver on engine performance. United and AAL were suppose to be L-1011 customers, but backed out and bought DC-10 when Lockheed could not deliver airplanes on time. Few people will argue over the L-1011-'s flying characteristics; it was a fine airplane.

The last DC10 was built in 1989. 446 total compared to less than half that many L1011's. As you may recall UAL did actually fly the L1011-500 for a couple of years after acquiring Pan Ams Pacific division. The -500 was a very sweet flying machine although it still did not have quite the range of the DC10-30 series aircraft.

 

[dojetdriver]

I was on the panel for a couple of years at Delta - absoultely awesome airframe. It was so far ahead of its time!

Unfortunately, the RR engines had some difficulty during the first few years so the type never caught on. Once that was solved, other options were available.

The DLC (spoilers) were awesome - on final the pitch angle didn't change and you looked through the same spot on the windshield at the runway. Very Solid!

I miss that airplane.

I wish you success!
Bill

Doesn't the F-14 have a DLC system as well?

 

[HA25]

I sat in the j/s on a Delta L1011 where the captain climbed that thing at 360 to .84 and then leveled off and went all the way to .89. And that was a worn out bird that was slated for retirement. Not bad if you ask me.

 

[jdlilfan]

I don't think there was ever a pure cargo version of the L-1011, was it not always in passenger configuration? They quit building it in the early 80's, where as McD built a cargo version of the DC-10 into the early 00's. The DC-10 was made viable in the marketplace due to the failure of RR to deliver on engine performance. United and AAL were suppose to be L-1011 customers, but backed out and bought DC-10 when Lockheed could not deliver airplanes on time. Few people will argue over the L-1011-'s flying characteristics; it was a fine airplane.

I dont think there was ever a factory built cargo L-1011 but I know that there was at least one converted L-10. The old American International Airways flew one (maybe more?) and it was bought by Kitty Hawk.

 

[GeorgeTG]

I talked to one of the pilots of the Orbital rocket laucher L1011 and he said that the planes need much TLC...

He used to fly for Hawaiian and said they got the old ANA planes from Japan.
he said the planes where immaculate but things went downhill and within 2-3 months they were covered in yellow stickers...

The old ANA guys swear by the L1011 also.

seems like its a pilots airplane but a mx hog...
if you have one or two no problem, but a fleet might be an issue.

Cheers
George

 

[VABB]

Not sure how much truth there is to it, but I have the heard that the L-1011 was a maintenance nightmare compared to the DC-10. Also, I don't think the L-1011 can haul a comparable load over a said distance.

 

[Spooky 2]

I dont think there was ever a factory built cargo L-1011 but I know that there was at least one converted L-10. The old American International Airways flew one (maybe more?) and it was bought by Kitty Hawk.

I belive that Kitty Hawk bought as many as six ex British Airways L1011's and had freight doors put on them over in England prior to their delivery. Also ther were a number of RAF L1011 tankers that had freighter doors in them as well. Some were new out of the factory and a couple at least came from the Pan Am fleet.

Delta operated a number of former Pan Am, UAL L1011's which were refered to as PUDS....Pan Am, UAL, Delta.

 

[JPAustin]

I'm curious why the L-1011 didn't catch on as a freighter as well as the DC-10 did. While FedEx is still pulling DC-10-10s out of the desert and converting them to the MD-10, there are loads of L-1011s parked. Do the L-1011s have short time/cycle limits on the airframe and they're just burned out? Thanks

I would venture a guess to say that parts support is lacking and therefore expensive. Just not enough aircraft in the marketplace to begin with, thus there aren't scads of parts lying in inventory somewhere.

I will say this though, the L1011 was one sharp looking bird, and the -500 series, man, even sharper. ATA had a couple -500's it bought from some Arabian Sheik. The FAA made them put in overwing exits and the marble-floored lavs with solid gold furnishing ofcourse had to come out

 

[Bringupthebird]

My dad flew EAL's Tin Lemon's and loved them. As a kid, I thought having an elevator for the stewardesses to go up and down between the galley and main deck was too cool. My old man's only complaint was that the cockpit windows were too big and people getting on could see your big fat belly hanging over your belt.

 

[AdlerDriver]

I'm curious why the L-1011 didn't catch on as a freighter as well as the DC-10 did. While FedEx is still pulling DC-10-10s out of the desert and converting them to the MD-10, there are loads of L-1011s parked. Do the L-1011s have short time/cycle limits on the airframe and they're just burned out? Thanks

??? Fedex is pulling -10s out of the desert? I thought we were just converting the -10s that we had.

 

[CopilotDoug]

Didn't you hear? Boeing is firing up the DC-10 production line again for FedEx!

You are right, in retrospect. FedEx had owned these particular ex-Hawaiian DC-10s for a while (around 2003 I believe) and they were just recently converted over around June or so of this year.

 

[Junkflyer]

Connie had some converted and flew them in the 90's (AIA). They were cheap to buy, but heavy on mx, hard to get parts for and couldn't carry a real big load. They are fast and pilot friendly, just not a good fit for the freight business.