Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If The L1011 Was A Twin  
User currently offlineCO737800 From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 545 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5721 times:

If the L1011 was a twin do you think it would have been a big success?Would Boeing be what it is today if the L1011 twin was a success?I don't think the 767 would have been as big of a hit if the L1011 was a big hit. I think we could have seen Lockheed make different aircraft types with their added money the L1011 would have made.I know we will hear that the A300 was a twin and was not that successful but if they would have put more range in it I think it would have been.more sucscessful

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKensukeAida From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5686 times:

The L1011 was originally planned by Lockheed as a twin, but it was determined in the design stage that it would need three engines to push it along.

I don't think this was done out of decision, but rather necessity. The Douglas
engineers evidently ran into the same problem with the DC-10. Both the L1011 and DC-10 were designed to specifications laid down by American Airlines, which explains the similarities.

So, no. There is nothing to suggest it would have been "more successful" because it wouldn't really have been the same airplane. Lockheed "lost" because their heart was never really in it to begin with.

- John


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5665 times:

And had it been a twin, or the DC10 for that matter, they wouldn't have been able to run the longer routes they ended up running during the 70s, as engines weren't powerful enough at that time for twins to have the same abilities.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
If the L1011 was a twin do you think it would have been a big success?

No, it would have fallen out of the sky, literally. The engines at the time were not powerful enough for a twin of that size.

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
I know we will hear that the A300 was a twin and was not that successful but if they would have put more range in it I think it would have been.more sucscessful

The A300 was and still is a very successful airplane. New orders are still being placed on the 600F version (FedEx). It's selling like hotcakes right now on the 2nd hand cargo market.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6939 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5593 times:

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
I know we will hear that the A300 was a twin and was not that successful...

Really? It has been in production for 30 years and is still selling. Include the A310 as a variant (they come off the same production line) and sales are 858, just a hundred shy of the 964 767s Boeing have sold. Yes, Boeing sold those in a shorter time scale but remember that Airbus was starting from zero with the A300. They had no track record, no after sales support network, no established customer base or anything. Moreover, it appears that the A300 will still be in production after the last 767 has left Seattle. Albeit at a low rate and for freighters only but we could see the A300 in production for 40 years! "...not that successful"?

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
If the L1011 was a twin do you think it would have been a big success?

Where Lockheed came unstuck was in having only one plane to offer airlines. A twin TriStar (a BiStar?!) might have been no more successful than the tri-jet. We'd then be asking, "If Lockheed had put a third engine on the L-1011..." Now, if they'd somehow done both and could begin to offer airlines a family, that might have been more attractive. They'd have needed a narrowbody pretty quickly (as Airbus followed the A300/A310 with the A320) but satisfying more than one market segment had become essential by the time the TriStar flew. On the other hand...

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 1):
Lockheed "lost" because their heart was never really in it to begin with.

I'm too far away (geographically and in time) to know if this is true but I can't help feeling that you've hit the nail on the head. In the 1970s and into the 'eighties, Airbus had the will to succeed whereas Lockheed seemed to lose interest.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
And had it been a twin, or the DC10 for that matter, they wouldn't have been able to run the longer routes they ended up running during the 70s, as engines weren't powerful enough at that time for twins to have the same abilities.

No, that is not true. Remember, the A-300-B2/B4 had the same GE CF-6 engines the DC-10-10 had. The RR RB-211 engines on the L-1011s had about the same amount of thrust. Both of these engines were in the 45,000+ lb range for thrust, as was the competing P&W JT-9Ds. Additionally, a wide twin L-1011 or DC-10 would have been a lot lighter than its 3 hole sister.

The A-300B2/B4 had no where near enough range, so wide body twins, were not able to fly most missions the airlines wanted them too (at the time, they were bearly transcontinential). Additionally, there was no such thing as ETOPS in the 1970s, so they could not fly over oceans or very large deserts or mountain ranges. ETOPS didn't start until twin jets could demonstrate more reliability, when more than 90 minutes from an alternate airport. It was the B-767-200ER/300ER that began ETOPS.

If the L-1011 had been offered as a twin (L-1012?), it would have been even longer before any US airline bought any Airbus aircraft. Remember, EA was the first US customer for the A-300B4 (and for many years, they were the only US customer). EA would have prefered to by these airplanes with RB-211 engines, but they were not offered. Had a twin L-1011 been offered to EA, with RR engines, they would have bought them. DL would have also bought a twin L-1011, if they had enough range.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5421 times:

Lockheed proposed a two engine L-1011 early in the program. However, when Rolls Royce went bankrupt and left Lockheed without and engine to power the basic L-1011, it cost Lockheed millions of dollars. There was just not enough cash available to pursue additional models. Pictures of the twin engine L-1011-600 are available on the internet, in fact about three months ago one of Lockheed's promotional models of the -600 was sold on e-Bay.

User currently offlineWaterpolodan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5367 times:



This may be a false rumor, but apparently there was even a 4 engine version considered, with two engines in the tail for better hot/high performance, I have no idea how that would look...


User currently offlineSocalfive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5341 times:

BAck in the days of early jumbo development, true the engines weren't as powerful for one thing, although that might have been able to be overcome, I don't know, but I do remember when studying the early development stages of Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed that there was a psychological factor in the 60's about an airplane that big with only two engines and since Jet A was about 14 cents a gallon.... Nobody cared, go three! This certainly wasn't the only reason but it was a factor from a marketing standpoint. The A300 came along later.

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5272 times:

The real question should be "What if the DC-10 was a twin". The L-1011 program was over a year ahead of the DC-10 when it was lunched. Airlines pleaded with Douglas to build a twin, let Lockheed have the three engine market, Boeing the four engine market. Douglas said he would beat the L-1011 into the air, which he did, but the DC-10 suffered, as there early problems showed. See a book called "The Sporty Game" by John Newhouse for the real story on the L-1011/DC-10/B747 sales wars.

User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5246 times:

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 1):
but it was determined in the design stage that it would need three engines to push it along.

I read somewhere years ago that the third engine was added due to customer perceptions that a tri-jet was safer than a twin.

There are certainly engines available (at least today) that could safely handle the Tristar.



Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineAmy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

These aircraft were three holers because, at the time, the most powerful engines dictated that an aircraft of the required MTOW would need three. Now we have such engineering feats as the Rolls Royce Trent and GE90, this no longer applies.

This, along with the introduction of ETOPS is why I confidently predict that there will not be another 3-engined comercial airliner designed.



A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
User currently offlineCs03 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 413 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Lockheed also had problems with producing airliners after the Constellation, in that the Lockheed Electra was a costly failure due to structural problems and timing. Lockheed returned to focus on military business after the outlook for the L1011 became clear.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5204 times:

I think Lockheed should have jumped at a chance to build a twin-engined L1011 derivative in the late 1970's powered by higher-performance RB.211-524 engines then under development for higher-MTOW 747-200's.

If they had actually done that it could have severely cut into 767 and A300B/A310 sales.


User currently offlineKensukeAida From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5192 times:

The A300 and the DC-10/L1011 were designed with two different rolls in mind. So, it's not really fair to compare them. The former was primarily built for intra-contenental medium range routes (primarily in Europe), while the latter were designed for inter-contenental and trans-contenental routes based on a request by AA. The range of the A300 was much shorter than the DC-10/L1011, and the pax capacity was less.

Sure, you can say that a twin engined DC-10/L1011 would have kept Airbus at bay for awhile, but remember that in the 1960s the engines available weren't as powerful, the pax capacity on the two was heavier, and they had very specific guidelines by an airline customer. In the TriStar's case, the selection of the RR engines was kinda touch and go there for awhile because RR went bankrupt.

- John


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

In the late 1970's Lockheed proposed the L-1011-400. Is was to have a further shortened -500 fuselage (8 feet shorter) powered by three de-rated RB-211-524's, for short to medium stages. No airlines were interested and the program was dropped.

User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5093 times:

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 1):
Lockheed "lost" because their heart was never really in it to begin with.

Not exactly. Lockheed actually had a lead over the DC-10, but that was shattered when Rolls went under...then RR had issues with engine development...delays happened...and the DC-10 got out ahead of the L-1011...and that is that...


User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5074 times:

The L-1011-600 doesn't even look like it could fly. I may be wrong, but it just looks too fat for a twin-engine.....


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

FYI:

I'm looking at a picture of a model of Lockheeds proposed twin-engined L-1011. Sorry I could not find it on the net, it's in a early 1970s book I have called "L-1011 TriStar and the Lockheed Story" by Douglas J. Ingells on page 169.

Anyhow it appears to have a regular L-1011 fuselage. Tail flying surfaces all appear to be smaller. The wing shape is vintage L-1011. The unusual bit is the engines, they are underneath the wings!! The leading edge of the inlets is a foot or two aft of the leading edge of the wing. Compensating for the CG shift with the tail engine missing I suppose.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4953 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 18):

Remember the L-1011-600 never got past the proposal stage, no metal was bent, no wind tunnel tests, no wood mock-up, pen and ink on paper only.


User currently offlineBCBHokie From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4927 times:

Man, if there was one aviation company that knew how to make beautiful flying machines, it was Lockheed. My all time favorite a/c was the Constellation, and the picture Waterpolodan posted is of the most beautiful looking twin-engine jet design I've seen so far...

Yeah yeah, I know the aerodynamic reasons for making a/c that look the same... but that -600 is gorgeous  Smile

Ben


User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

Remember also, things not only need to be proven, they also have to go in the people heads and been accepted.

I remember, working as a young flight attendant for the Swissair charter subsidiary Balair. We flew the DC-10 transatlantic and the A310-300 on other long range missions incl. ETOPS for example to the Maldives in the Indian Ocean. But transatlantic (the Americas) was the big mystery and caused all those discussions about feasibility of ETOPS, although it worked smooth to the Indian Ocean. Passengers were afraid going to ditch in the North Atlantic or may be have been made mad for by the media.

So early 1988 the DC-10 HB-IHK went into a D-check and wasn't available for some weeks. During this period they planned 8 pairs of flights on the route ZRH-GVA-JFK v.v. You can't imagine what discussions this caused. Finally we were instructed not to mention the type of aircraft to the passengers, they even wanted us to say that we didn't know what it was, if asked so. Can you imagine?

I also remember, when BSL based ASA (African Safari Airlines) needed to find a replacement for their two DC-8-63 in the late 80ties. Their owner stated officially that there was no twin in the fleet as long as he was. They went then for a DC-10 that was replaced 2 or 3 years ago with a A310.

So to come to the conclusion: I think, even if the L1011 or the DC-10 was a twin, the time wasn't ready those days to accept the design in the people mind. It may have accelerated the introduction of ETOPS but I think it was alright the way it was and those planes performed best as lovely Trijets what they indeed were.

Cheers
Legacy135 Wink


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

Quoting Amy (Reply 11):
These aircraft were three holers because, at the time, the most powerful engines dictated that an aircraft of the required MTOW would need three. Now we have such engineering feats as the Rolls Royce Trent and GE90, this no longer applies.

This, along with the introduction of ETOPS is why I confidently predict that there will not be another 3-engined comercial airliner designed.

I agree. For the same reasons, I think the WhaleJet will be the last all-new quad. From now onwards, I think all all-new airliners will be twins. Of course, B747s and A380s may continue in production for another ten years or more before being replaced by twins.


User currently offlineCO737800 From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4872 times:

Did Lockheed have a 737 or 320 type on the drawing board if so does anyone have any old pics of it

User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4842 times:

Lockheed could have built a twin much earlier if Rolls Royce had proceeded with the RB207.

The 207 was bigger than the RB211-22B used on the TriStar and was being developed specifically for the Airbus A300. However bankruptcy and funding got in the way, and the 207 was shelved. Airbus then went to GE for the CF6 and shortened the proposed A300 to compensate.

If the RB207 had been built it would have been ideal for a twinjet Lockheed design.


25 Ikramerica : What is not true. You agreed with everything I said! The A300 had less range, and if the L1011 were a twin, it would have less range, too. It would n
26 Cha747 : So, I guess, American only bit with the DC-10 as I don't ever remember an AA L1011. Here are the only U.S. carriers I remember flying L1011's on were
27 474218 : TWA a launch customer Pan Am PSA There were several second tier operators: Air America American International (Kalitta) Arrow Fine Air Hawaiian Millo
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...
If The M80 Was To Go Back Into Production....... posted Sun Apr 4 2004 09:16:20 by Copaair737
If MD Had Gone Ahead With The DC-10 Twin... posted Sun Jul 9 2006 22:35:41 by MCIGuy
What If The Boeing 2707 Was Built? posted Wed May 31 2006 19:29:35 by 747400sp
Was The 767 Boeing Answer To The L1011 And DC10 posted Sat Feb 26 2005 20:58:25 by 747400sp
Was The L1011 A Success? posted Fri Aug 29 2003 04:06:46 by BOSugaDL
She Was The Greatest Piston Twin Ever Built posted Sun May 28 2000 00:32:59 by MD-90
If The 757-300 Were Offered Earlier... posted Mon Sep 11 2006 01:02:57 by 1337Delta764
What If The Price Of Oil Continues To Rise? posted Mon Jul 17 2006 20:29:22 by FLY2LIM
DC-10 Center Wheel And The L1011 posted Fri Jul 7 2006 06:22:36 by AA777223
The Safest Widebody, The L1011? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 22:35:11 by Rob878