Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Lockheed Abandon Commercial Production?  
User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Why won't Lockheed make a new commercial line?  



Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTr1492 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1603 times:

Lockheed took a pretty big hit financially with the L-1011, losing out on sales to the DC-10 due to slow development of the TriStar (compared to the -10). After they announced they would discontinue the TriStar (early '80's) they decided to concentrate on military/aerospace only, hence no more Lockheed civilian planes. Perhaps the military/aerospace market is much more lucrative than the civilian market, although I do believe that civilian versions of the Hercules are still available.

All in all, too bad!!! I could imagine a new generation TriStar......hmmmmmm.!

Regards,
TR


User currently offlineBeechbarron From United States of America, joined May 2000, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1576 times:

I agree AerLingus, I wish Lockheed still made a commercial transport. I'm sure though that it would be a long-range twin just like a boeing or airbus product. I have to say, (IMO), that the new planes are getting boring because they all look basically the same. It's refreshing to see 727's, L10's, and DC10's etc. in a twin-ruled world.

User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1567 times:

Even if it were a long range twin, I bet it would still have the characteristic nose and smoothed out lines that the Tri-Star had.


Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

In the late 1970s Lockheed actually thought about a twin-engined L1011. It was called the "BiStar" (Certainly not sounding as nice as the "TriStar") But of course this was scrapped.

User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

If they proceeded we would have DC-10 twins too! 

User currently offlineDan The Man From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

I would love to see Lockheed make A Next Generation L-1011, Keeping the 3-Engine layout. I think it would be really successful, and a lot of airlines would buy it.

Dan The Man


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

... and Beechbarron would have nothing to see for refreshing ! That's why 50's - 60's are my favorite: last piston-engined, a lot of turboprops, very different jets by many producers...


User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

The market couldn't support four major manufacturers...not even three.

User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

I would love to see a modern Tristar. We need more tri-engine airliners. The MD-11 is a great and modern trijet that flies almost as far as the 777 and A340, and carries just as many passengers. But since Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, the are discontinuing the MD-11.

User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

Locheed builds the greatest transport/passenger planes in the world.

The planes are over engineered, and overbuilt. They are tough, enjoyable to fly, contain advanced engineered systems, and above all safe.

The L1011 was so advanced that todays 777 doesn't even surpass it in technical achievment. Direct Lift Control, auto land capabilities. And the L1011 was designed 30 years ago.

The death blow was dealt to the L1011 was dealt by Rolls Royce. They were pushing the envelope with new fan technology in the RB211. It had many teathing problems delaying the delivery of L1011's. There were L1011's sitting for months finished all except engines hung.

The DC10 was a rushed design,and although it gets the job done, it does not do it as gracefully as the L10 does. You could open a watermellon with a hammer, or a scalpel. The scalpel is much more graceful. It is an instrument of precision. As is the L1011.

The C17 has followed the legacy of well designed Locheed aircraft. It is quite amazing in it's capabilities.

If Locheed were around today, and still building a single model airplane I am sure it would dominate that category.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8046 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

I think what doomed Lockheed was the fact that they over-tailored the L1011 to the Rolls-Royce RB.211 engine. If they had designed the plane so it could accept the Pratt & Whitney JT9D or General Electric CF6 engine, I think Lockheed would have sold FAR more L1011's and in fact it's possible that a successor to the L1011 would have been built, but it would be twin-engined and powered by today's P&W PW4084/4092, GE GE90-92, or R-R Trent 892 engines.

Essentially, Airbus stepped into the niche that Lockheed abandoned, and sold several planes evolved from the original A300B2/B4 design (A310, A300-600/600R, A330, and A340).


User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

There was some insider corporate funny business going on, especially with RR. However, Lockheed is a supurb military contractor. They haven't ever been very successful as a commercial transport maker. Their designs and workmanship are above par. And although Convair was even more thorough in their engineering than Lockheed (their inside motto was "engineering to the 'nth' degree) their L-1011 made much more commercial sense than the 880 & 990.

Look close at an L1011 and you'll see very close attention to detail. For instance, look closely at the Boeing 757 engine pylons. They're pretty crude. Not on the Tristar. But who makes more money on commercial aircraft? Not Lockheed.

But, I thought Lockheed was now sharing their name with Martin. Is this correct?

GE



User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

A next generation Tri-Star could fill the market gap left open by the withdrawal of the DC-10, MD-11, and L-1011. ( I am not totally sure that the need is felt by the industry.)
Really, once you think about it, today's twin engined operations are merely a trend that probably won't last, just like the tri-jets in the 70's.

A revival of the tri-jet trend would make sense to me.
It's more economical than four engines, but it doesn't have to comply with ETOPS on extended range routes. I just think that it makes perfect sense!
What do you all think?



Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1465 times:

I compare the Tri-Star to old cars. Solid and overpowered. I am extremely fond of it also because there is more than meets the eye, mainly it's complex internal workings. Graceful yet a gritty workhorse of a jet at heart.


Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

The next tri-jet will be a BWB (Blended Wing Body).

User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Please define:
'Blended Wing Body'
? ? ?



Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

It's a flying wing design like the B-2 bomber and it'll be bigger than the A3XX.

User currently offlineTrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3258 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Lockheed is indeed merged with the Martin Corporation and is today known as Lockheed Martin. The relatively poor sales of the TriStar led Lockheed to end commercial aircraft design and production (the civilian Hercules is merely a development of the military workhorse) but the plane remains an elegant bird with solid performance and excellent safety - no TriStar has ever been lost due to purely mechanical reasons. So Lockheed's tailoring of the type to the RB211, although the deathknell of the plane, was certainly an advantage in the sense that the plane and engine truly performed in an outstanding manner as a unit.

I doubt that Lockheed would ever return to commercial flying and today's twin craze will certainly put paid to any trijet development. Certainly trijets have no ETOPS issues but then, one must remember that engines available now are so much more powerful and reliable than those available 20-30 years ago that twins could virtually do anything that once required 3 engines. It is sad but do not expect to see any New Generation TriStars when the old fleet passes on.

 
Trintocan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
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...
Why Did AA Abandon The Denver Hub posted Tue Apr 18 2006 06:35:24 by AAden
Why Did AA Abandon 747's? posted Sat Jul 15 2000 03:25:43 by Surf
Why Did Tower Air Go Out Of Business? posted Sun May 24 2009 11:59:03 by United Airline
Why Did Airtran Choose ACY And ABE Over TTN? posted Wed Apr 29 2009 21:15:23 by Lrgt
Why Did GF/KU Miss The Boat? posted Wed Mar 18 2009 01:23:03 by TFFIP
Why Did AC Move In PHX? posted Sun Mar 15 2009 14:36:23 by Planenutz
Why Did EI Get Rid Of 767 posted Sun Mar 15 2009 02:59:27 by EI737NG
Why Did Air New Zealand Suspend FRA? posted Thu Jan 15 2009 19:19:58 by United Airline
Why Did Spanair Drop Casablanca? posted Sat Jan 10 2009 10:33:16 by LH4116
Why Did DL End MCO-SJU? posted Wed Dec 31 2008 09:21:37 by DLX737200