Tr1492 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1697 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.!
Beechbarron From United States of America, joined May 2000, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1670 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.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1602 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.
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1606 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.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1584 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).
Greeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1566 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?
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1563 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?
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1559 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.
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1541 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.