Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2449 posts, RR: 3 Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2505 times:
Since everyone is so anti A vs. B war, I thought it would be fun to have a L vs. M war. Lockheed vs. Douglas/McDonnell Douglas. Who was the better one? M lasted longer and built more aircraft. But L had the L1011, which, if I recall, was a 777 of its time? (very technologically advanced)
Seanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2442 times:
Which company exists to this day?
The L1011 was really a victim of RR having some serious problems with the early RB211. The DC-10 was a rather flawed aircraft, with several crashes early into its service, directly related to its airworthiness.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2391 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter): Who was the better one? M lasted longer and built more aircraft. But L had the L1011, which, if I recall, was a 777 of its time? (very technologically advanced)
You have summed it up well with regard to "L vs M."
Douglas (McDonnell-Douglas from the DC-10 to acquisition by Boeing) far outsold Lockheed from the robust propliner competition between the two that began in the mid-1940s through the tri-jets during the 1970s-early 1980s which led to Lockheed's complete withdrawal from designing and producing airliner types. Moreover, Douglas/McDD offered a broader range of airliner types than Lockheed. On the other hand, Lockheed types, namely the various models of the Constellation and the TriStar, were both indeed more advanced than their Douglas/McDD counterparts. The only Lockheed type which had no direct competitor from Douglas was the short-lived L-188 Electra program, while Lockheed was displaced by Boeing in fielding competitors for the Douglas DC-8 and DC-9/MD-80 designs.
In the Douglas vs Lockheed propliner competition that ran from 1946-1958, Lockheed was hindered by excessive commitment to Howard Hughes/TWA, which handed an advantage to Douglas in many cases. In addition to offering very good alternatives to the Constellation series, Douglas also had established a very solid relationship with the all-powerful patriarch leaders of several of the leading U.S. airlines of the time. Donald Douglas was highly esteemed and trusted among airline executives which greatly contributed to his firm's success in the competition against Lockheed in securing orders from airlines in the U.S. as well as in Europe.
In the DC-10 vs L-1011 competition, McDD got off to an early lead from which Lockheed never recovered, thanks in large part to troubles at Rolls-Royce, exclusive supplier of the L-1011s powerplants, which led to major delays in early deliveries and even left the L-1011 program itself in jeopardy for some time. McDD also beat Lockheed to the draw by about 5 years in offering a long range version of the respective tri-jets. All of which hastened Lockheed's decision to not only pull the plug on not only the TriStar but to shut down their airliner division altogether in 1982. Fifteen years later, McDD was absorbed by Boeing.
Centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3601 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2362 times:
Sure wish Lockheed still made Commercial Airliners. I wonder what they would be proposing now...
If McDD had stayed on things and remained competative, I wonder what they would be proposing now...
In that case... If Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed and McDD were all still in the market I wonder what our discussions would be like... A vs B, A vs L, A vs M, B vs L, B vs M, L vs M and the ultimate B vs L vs A vs M debates. We would call them BLAMs. "And I think to myself....what a wonderful world."
[Edited 2006-01-23 04:09:53]
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin) is the largest defense contractor in the world. So I would say they still exist. By the way, Boeing is the second largest defense contractor but mainly on the strength of their acquisitions McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell International (North American Aviation).
Ask any airline that flew both the L-1011 and the DC-10 and they will tell you that there was and is no comparison. The DC-10 was a basic design that relied on technology developed by Douglas on the DC-8 and DC-9. Lockheed started with a clean sheet of paper and developed a aircraft that had no equal for it technical features. Autoland, Auto Throttles, Autobrakes, DLC, FMS, Active Controls, Flying Stabilizer were all standard on various L-1011 models. Did the DC-10 sell better, yes it did but Douglas had a large customer base and Lockheed had to regain the confidence lost by the Electra. If Roll Royce had not had the problems at the beginning of the program sales may have been different, but even though Lockheed lost money on the L-1011 program, the aircraft itself was a success. Airlines like Delta, LTU, ANA, Cathay Pacific, TWA, ATA and Air Transat made millions of dollars, (Marks and Yen) flying the L-1011.
By the way I worked for both Douglas and Lockheed so I know a little about how each of these aircraft were designed and built
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 14014 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2253 times:
Quoting Centrair (Reply 4): In that case... If Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed and McDD were all still in the market I wonder what our discussions would be like... A vs B, A vs L, A vs M, B vs L, B vs M, L vs M and the ultimate B vs L vs A vs M debates. We would call them BLAMs. "And I think to myself....what a wonderful world."
What a wonderful world it would be indeed. I too have wondered what would have happened if Douglas and Lockheed would still be alive.
I also heard somewhere that Lockheed was (and still is) known for outstanding customer support on the L-1011. Too bad they axed the L-1011 programme, had they continued on, especially with this apparently excellent customer support they provide, maybe they could have saved the Commerical Airliner line in Palmdale (though I reckon Lockheed might not make it if they ever choose to return, with A and B's duopoly in the airliner market for widebodies).
Elagabal From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
Goodness, do I miss DL's L-1011s. Apart from the technology, that airliner was probably the nicest and most comfortable I have ever been on... UL's short hop on an L-1011 from COL to MLE was one of the most entertaining flying experiences money could buy - stunning experience turning over MLE and seeing the mosque and beaches. Love that ugly old outboard motor, too.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 2): with several crashes early into its service, directly related to its airworthiness
Not all, the AA crash was an AA maintenence error, they replaced the engine with cowling, when the manual clearly said that was the wrong way to do it. Because of the way they changed the engine it caused cracks and subsequently caused the separation of the engine on take-off. The Turkish crash(in Paris) however, was clearly a design fault.
Seanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10): It seems that the engine separation was the trigger, but that the investigation also indicated that the result was an asymmetrical stall.
Yeah, the engine separation was due to faulty MX practices, however, the crash really happened due to two things: the A+B hydraulic lines for the wings were routed directly over the engine pylon, next to each other, so when the engine separated, it severed BOTH hydraulic lines. Then, the F/O, following the engine out checklist, slowed to V2 by pulling up the nose, allowing the hydraulic fluid to spill out, allowing the slats on that wing to retract, causing the wing to stall, and the plane to crash. Also, the F/O did not have a stick shaker to alert him that the wing was stalling, so he did not know until it was too late.
If the primary and backup hydraulic lines were routed separately, the engine out checklist specified that if over V2, climb at that speed, and if the F/O had a stick shaker, those people on that flight might have survived, even though the engine separated.
Justplanesmart From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 729 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1838 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 8): Well, if the L1011 is SO advanced to the DC-10, how come these days there are more DC-10s than L1011s flying?
First of all, there were 446 DC-10's built (including the KC-10), and only 250 Tristars, so the numbers favor the Long Beach-built trijet from the start. Also, more of the DC-10's built were the Series 30, with the advantage of longer range, full capacity (more on that in a moment) and an engine common to several other widebodies, whereas the full-length L-1011 models lacked range, the L-1011-500 had the range but sacrificed capacity, and all shared their Rolls-Royce engines only with some 747's. The final factor, which relates closely to the capacity issue, is use as a freighter. The DC-10 was offered from the outset as a cargo aircraft, with both Series 10 and Series 30 CF's being built early in its production run. This helped to give the DC-10 a second career as a cargo hauler, while there are very few all-freight versions of the Tristar.