Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9 Posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
I know for a fact that neither the DC-10 nor the L-1011 were ever stretched; only shrunk in order to increase range. I know Douglas had plans to build a stretched version of the DC-10-10, the DC-10-60, which could carry more passengers with increased range, but they were bought out by McDonnell before the project could get started. Did Lockheed have plans to stretch the L-1011 with increased range? Would that have been possible?
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6659 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3317 times:
Lockheed's goal was always to develop a family of airliners - here are just two of them: In autumn 1976, the manufacturer announced the L-1011-300 with 410 passengers on the maindeck and a further 45 in the underfloor cabin. This would have added 15 ft (4.5 m) each to the forebody and afterbody of the airframe, giving an overall length of 207 ft 4 in (63.2 m). By the end of 1980, Lockheed's developments focused on variants based on the Dash 500. The L-1011-500 Stretch would have combined the fuselage of the L-1011-200 and the active controls and wings of the Dash 500 to allow transatlantic capability.
And as everyone knows, the DC-10 stretch plans became the MD-11 which is 18.6 feet longer than the DC-10 and carries from around 285 in a three-class arrangement to 410 pax in an all-economy configuration.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Startvalve From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3002 times:
Because its a dumb idea
If someone wants to haul more people/freight the same or a longer distance Boeing or even Scarebus make larger airplanes. Some with more engines, some with less (twins are cheaper to operate and more reliable) so instead of investing many millions into an old, worn out airframe that takes 3 people to fly then paying many more millions to stretch it they can just go out and buy a 777/767/747/A330/whatever.
Face it the L-1011s and DC-10s have outlived their useful lives to most passenger carriers and will only widely see freight service in the future.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2965 times:
Startvalve, it is obvious that the L-1011s and DC-10s are not an option today. I simply meant why didn't Lockheed stretch these versions in the late 1970s, when the 767, 777, and 757 were not yet on the drawing board? I simply meant, was there a way to make the L-1011 longer ranged by stretching it and adding more passengers? I'm not interested in the expenses, simply puzzled why Lockheed did not stretch the L-1011 to compete with the MD-11.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
I'm not interested in the expenses, simply puzzled why Lockheed did not stretch the L-1011 to compete with the MD-11.
But expense is at the heart of the answer to your original question. Stretching the plane significantly would have meant a wing re-design. Incidentally, the L-1011 program was cancelled in 1982, long before the MD-11 existed. Lockheed got out of the business because they were losing money on every L-1011 they produced. They had no interest in sustaining production, especially if they had to invest more money in a product line that bankrupted them. I wish they did, but they didn't.
All you need to do is research the topic on the internet, rather than here. There are lots of L-1011 sites on there.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised