Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Stretch The L-1011: Why Not?  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3152 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?


Fly one thing; Fly it well
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16239 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3095 times:

There were no plans by Lockheed to ever stretch the L-1011.

I recall the DC-10-60 proposal. Although offered to airlines none were takers.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

The DC-10 recieved a new flt deck, more modern engines and wings, and a streched fuselage. I believe it was called the MD-11.


Happy holidays everyone!
CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13464 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The L-1011 program did undergo a shrink with increased range though, resulting in the L-1011-500 series.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6067 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2990 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
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

To significantly increase the fuselage, and therefore the weight of the airplane, you need to also increase the wing area. That means a lot of work and therefore a lot of expense.


An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineStartvalve From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2675 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.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2638 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.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2506 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Emirates And The 747...why Not? posted Sat Apr 1 2006 16:58:58 by TwoLz2Rn
Greenland And The Faroes: Why Not Danish Domestic? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 16:08:16 by Himmelstormer
NW And The 767: Why Not? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 08:32:13 by Centrair
Instead Of The 747Adv, Why Not A 777-400? posted Mon Apr 26 2004 20:50:30 by Starlionblue
Airbus, Why Not Take On The 777? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 06:26:10 by Tangowhisky
Q 400 And ATR 72 Why Not More Orders In The US? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 22:15:15 by Cumulonimbus
747-8F Longer Than The 747-8I, Why Not...? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 22:31:24 by DIA
Why AC Get's The EMB170 And Not The CRJ700/900? posted Tue Sep 13 2005 15:25:44 by CV990
Why Not A Daley Solution To The Wright Issue? posted Tue Jul 19 2005 19:36:46 by ACAfan
Why Not Put The A.net Livery On An Airliner? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 21:44:37 by Birdwatching