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?