aviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (16 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Here is one under appreciated aircraft. It was never produced in the numbers once thought possible but none the less, she was and is one fine aircraft.
On a normal crossing of the north atlantic, most airliners cruise at mach .083 to .085.
The L1011 would get up and go at .089.
Even though her flight deck is not adorned with EFIS crt's, she had some very sophisticated systems.
Most people dont even realize that the L1011 was designed and produced with auto-land. This is a very sophisticated system that is only now finding its way into the mainstream cockpits of long haul airliners.
I still say she was one of the finest commercial transports to come out of the last generation of airliners. Id fly her anytime over an airbus.
aviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (16 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 702 times:
My good friend, after flying the atlantic for almost 19 years now I hope Im reading my
mach indicator correctly.
.085 is 85 percent of the speed of sound. Our mach indicators havent changed since the last time i looked.
aviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (16 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Actually, what I should have said to make myself clear is that .085 is the ICAO
designator for mach number. This is also how it is depicted on the indicator and the ICAO flight plan.
Send me an email address and Id be glad to send you a copy of an international ICAO flight plan.
Also, this is the depiction on the FMS, INS units and auto flight control display unit display our mach number in this form.
aviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (16 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Autoland?? Standard for 15 years?? Im talking about the auto-land that is
Cat III a qualified. This system not only lets down to a decision height half the CatII standards, it steers and brakes the aircraft to a stop.
Most airliners arent even CatII qualified let alone CatIIIa
If this has been standard at your airline, Id sure as heck like to fly for them.
They must have some fleet :)
Aviator_ua From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (16 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Yes, your history is correct. However, I wouldnt call one model having that capability
Hey, no hard feelings. People seeing thigs differently is what makes the world go round.
By the way, you never told me what you thought of the L1011.
Sometimes I wish for the old days when aircraft had analog cockpits like the L1011.
It seems EFIS has made the new flight decks so anticeptic and generic looking.
Give me those round dials anyday. lol
My current type (767-300-er) at least uses a combination of the old and the new.
Hey, Im all for progress but I miss those switches, gauges and instruments cluttering the panel and the overhead. :)
Nice to meet you by the way.
MD-11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (16 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Yea, what would we do if we all just agreed with eachother all the time. :)
I'm sort of neutral about the L-1011... I don't dislike it nor do I particularly love it. I would probably take the DC-10 over it. In any case, my favorite tri jet jumbo out of the three is the MD-11. I don't mind the glass cockpits. I think the MD-11's is very nice... I do sort of wonder about the 777 though since even it's "back-up" instruments are LCDs. I think it is nice to have good ol' iron instruments for back up like the MD-11 has.
pet1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (16 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 704 times:
yep ! i think that was the only thing that kept
her down ,,,, the numbers,,, seem's the large number operators loved her. once your spooled up
to maintain her ,, everyone loved it. but if
you werent prepared for that ,, she'd eat your lunch. and next generation tech stuff would have
flowed ,, ! just like the "27" -n- "37"
BryanG From United States of America, joined May 1999, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (16 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Unfortunately, a bad luck cloud surrounded this entire aircraft's production. There were administrative delays on the lines, and engine delays from RR that set the project behind the DC-10. Lockheed also didn't really know how to market their great product, and ended up losing money on the entire program. That's why it was the last Lockheed passenger jet. If they had gotten lucky and had a smooth beginning, we'd all probably be L-1011 fans instead of DC-10 fans right now.
AA727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (16 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 705 times:
I agree with you aviator-ua. The L-1011 is a fine aircraft although that it did not have any crt in the cockpit. It did have advanced tecknology, the autoland capability, like you explained. It is however sad that Lockheed didn't stay long in the airline business. They have made great commercial airplanes, the L-1011 being one of my favorite ones. The very best Lockheed has ever made. I imagine that you have flown the L-1011 either with Pan Am or with United when they got them from Pan Am.
It sounds like you really enjoyed flying it. Did you fly that one as captain ?
Any reply from you will be greatly appreciated.
L1011 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (16 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 703 times:
The L-1011 is my favorite aircraft. That's why I use it for my screen name and have it on my license plate. I have flown on many Eastern and Delta L-1011s, but only one on TWA. I liked them even better when they had eight-abreast seating in coach, 2-4-2. There was a console dividing the four in the middle, so it really seemed like 2-2-2-2. The airlines went to 2-5-2 in the late seventies. Flight attendants on Eastern told me that only a few were being converted to 2-5-2, but soon all of them were. I don't know what Delta will use on their mainland to Hawaii routes when their L-1011s are gone. I don't like the thought of flying that far over water on only two engines.
flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (16 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Actually, LAX-HNL is only 2555mi, and SFO-HNL is only 2398mi. UAL flies 757s from the west coast to Hawaii. I think that DL will use the MD-11 on ATL-HNL and B767-300s from LAX and DFW. Unless, that is, they put 777s on those routes.
n4khgirl From United States of America, joined May 1999, 297 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (16 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Yeah The L1011 has to be one of my favorite airplanes! I would love to fly one, or just go up in the cockpit to see what it looks like. I bet it looks different than a Citation 1 :)
I also like the idea of having real dials. I like EFIS but nothing can replace the normal things...... Well, I guess EFIS is getting to be normal now, so I guess I should say the old-fashioned way.
See ya later,
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9558 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (16 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 702 times:
I did try to e-mail you with a more appropriate apology without
success. I was informed that I wasn't "on my friend's mailing list" -
well, now I feel twice as bad! I hope my later post will suffice.
I'll pay particular attention to your posts in future so I might learn
something. I've learned about ICAO mach designators already! :)
I also accept that the auto-land system of the Trident was as
comprehensive - it just got the aircraft on to the tarmac at which
point the pilot had to take over.
I'm afraid I've only flown in one L-1011. It was last year, Delta from
Brussels to JFK. It was a joint operation with Sabena, with the return
flight on an A-340. Having grown up in the narrow-body era, I was
surprised to find that I preferred the wider cabin of the L-1011 to
the A-340 and the Delta cabin crew were friendlier (sorry AA727). To
be honest, the only aircraft I didn't particulary like flying in was
the old Vickers Vanguard. It tends to be the airline and the state of
repair of the interior that makes the difference for me.
Will From Australia, joined May 1999, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (16 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Aviator_ua, you are quite right in saying that the L1011 was a great plane. lt was well designed with lots of good ideas that we are still seeing come out as new in the new Boeing's and Airbus's. l personally think that the L1011 suffered with lower than expected sales due to the earlier release, and aggressive marketing of Douglas corp's DC10 series.
Just a couple of thing's to mention about the L1011. First the L1011 was powerd by a revolutionary new engine known to all as the RB211. Most could comment that RB211 gave the L1011 troubles when it was first introduced, but all new A/C and engines have it's teething problems. E.G.( have a look at the JT9D on the B747 when it was introduced back in 69-70's. ) The RB211 grew into a excellent and very reliable series that we now see as the Trent 800 which powers the B777.
Second. l will be accused of being biased by some :-), but the L1011 and other older classic A/C have another important item that is better than any EICAS system, it has a Flight Engineer.....:-)
Oh well.....l guess you can't have a beer with an EICAS computer after your flight.....:-)
: There are still a number of American airlines that use the L-1011, though they are usually small carriers that only have a few. Delta has the largest
: AA, Unfortunately, I never did get to fly her as a pilot but I think she has a personality all her own. Lockheed was more interested in military aircr
: I couldnt agree more BryanG. You said it all beautifully.
: You are a real gentleman David. Ive opened up my mailbox so you or anyone can now write. Im new to the internet so forgive me if I dont know all the p
: Twins are the new age my friend. I miss that thrid and fourth hole too but the carriers are guided in their buying of aircraft by one principal.......
30 Cool Cat IIIc
: Can't say I know exactly what Boeings have indicated on their PFD's, but Airbus sure uses the 0.82 designation rather than the 0.082 which absulutely