DeltaShuttle From United States, joined May 1999, 319 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 414 times:
I have a question regarding the DC-10 and L-1011. I remember reading in a book about the DC-10 that the L-1011 got the majority of orders at first, and that the DC-10 was virtually saved by American's and United's orders. Why did the L-1011 have an edge in the beginning, and why did the DC-10 become so successful?
United#52 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 412 times:
Rolls-Royce had a problem with the RB211 jets that were to go on the L1011, and Lockheed had to wait for RR to redesign the engine, and the DC10 made major headway. The DC10 is better anyway.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2083 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 416 times:
The L-1011 didn't sell as well as the DC-10 for reasons related to its initial production costs resulting from its inherent avante-garde technological features. In fact, the reason why the Rolls Royce engines were so expensive is that they were the first triple-spool high-bypass jet engines. These engines were also the first to use carbon fiber blades. Unfortunately, both of these innovations had their natural teething problems back in 1970. Douglas took advantage of this by marketing a less innovative product but one which was ready to go. They also took advantage of the fact that the early RB.211s engines didn't have as much power nor did they offer as much range initially as the General Electric powered DC-10s. Lockheed didn't market a real long-range plane until 1978 with the introduction of the -500 series. By then, the DC-10 had cornered the market for long-range 3-engined airliners. Notwithstanding the fact that the Tri-star was also unique in that it introduced new technological innovations such as Direct Lift Control, a new Flight Management System (FMS), a Para Visual Display (PVD), computer programmed spoilers, "active ailerons" and three Carousel-IV Inertial Navigations Systems (INS) which allowed it to be the first airliner to fly "hands-off" as it did from the plant in Palmdale, C.A. to Washington D.C. in 1971 under the direction of the revolutionary Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). The L-1011 was the first to be able to fly completely automated "hands-off" from taxiway before runway to taxiway after runway with 4,000 miles in between. The L-1011 also had four hydraulic systems to the DC-10's three. That fourth system could have helped the United DC-10 (N1819U)in Sioux City that had all three of its systems lost when the number 2 engine blew to pieces. It certainly helped the Eastern L-1011 (N334EA)that had three of its four systems lose power when the fluid was lost after mechanics forgot to put the O-ring seats back in after maintenance. It landed safely and is still in service with Trade Winds. The Sioux City DC-10 is now in your refrigerator as recycled aluminum in pop cans. Speaking of the Number 2 engine on the L-1011, Lockheed chose to smooth it into the overall lines of the fuselage at the rear rather than just plop it on the tail like McDonnell Douglas did. While this was more pleasing to the eye, it also meant that the cabin length was compromised just a bit. But that bit was enough to sardine a few more seats into the DC-10. And let us not forget the dual navigation beacon on the top of the fuselage. Aircraft are required to only have one. Lockheed being lockheed at the time, put a second one for redundancy. But that extra beacon cost money like everything else they pioneered on the L-1011. More expensive to make, more expensive to sell. More expensive to sell, fewer sold. They couldn't sell enough to make it worth their while. In 1981, Lockheed realized that there was more money in making exotic planes for the military than in making cattle cars for the airlines. But even then, they still made the most exotic cattle cars in the business.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
AirFrance From United States, joined May 2006, 50 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 411 times:
the DC-10, despite the early delays with the RR engine, would have never been built if lockhead hadn't refused to put the CF-6 engine on the tristar. UAL wanted CF-6 powered tristars, and lobbied quite hard for them. If lockhead had agreed to do this, the intial orders for the DC-10 wouldn't have been great enough and the project probably wouldn't have been given the green light.
DeltaAir From United States, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 410 times:
If Lockheed had been just months earlier the L-1011 would have put MCD out of business. The L-1011 was much safer. Rumors went around that the DC-10 was rushed into production so it could beat the L-1011 eventhough it was not completely finished. That mistake cause a few hundred lives. And after many mistakes people stated to catch on and not another DC-10 was sold.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 410 times:
I highly doubt that the failure of the DC-10 could have put MD out of business. They at the time had a very strong military sector which was most of its company. It included the F-4, which was the most produced out of the USSR. Then they also had the DC-9 and DC-8 aircraft in the commercial sector.
Gattboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 411 times:
I think part of the problem in comparing the DC 10 and the L1011 is that they were designed for different market sectors originally. The L1011 was designed for shorter-range, higher-volume routes while the DC 10 was meant for lower-volume, longer-range flights. I read a book about why the DC 10 flopped and it had a whole section devoted to this exact debate. The L1011 was designed to just make it across the atlantic, while the DC 10 was concieved as pacific-capable. Granted they didn't really end up being used that way but that isn't McD's fault.
Someone mentioned the engines, and that was a big part of the whole thing. The overriding issue in the DC 10's failure was loss of public confidence after a bunch of crashes. Many of those crashes (Chicago, Souix City, maybe Dallas) were caused by engine problems. Now, if you've read AIRFRAME, by Michael Crichton, you know that engine problems are not the airframe manufacturers (McDonnell Douglas') fault. The airlines choose and install engines based on their own preference, and they are totally responsible for them.
So the DC 10 got dumped on because the engines the airlines put in them didn't work, and caused crashes, which were invariably reported as DC 10 crashes, even though the DC 10 part of the airplane was not at fault.
Stlbham From United States, joined May 1999, 443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 410 times:
The Lockheed L1011 was delayed almost two years when the newly designed, three spool RR RB211 engine had to be completely redesigned. Seems that the wide lightweight "Hydrofil" fan blades were great- that is until they did some testing in Saudi Arabia. It was found that sand would work away at the blades to the point that the engine could no longer produce takeoff power. With this extra time Douglas had time to "catch" up and gain a lot of headway. I also remember reading that the RR engine had overtemperature problems on start up. But the funny thing I remember hearing was that these engines could take a lot foreign object damage, and they were sometimes dispatched with a few broken blades. Is this true...?? seems funny that airlines would take the risk of sending a plane on its way with fan blades broken.....
DC-10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 412 times:
The L-1011 had problems in that it's sole engine supplier RR was backrupt and was being bailed out by the British Gov't. Both aircraft were designed for the same market segment originally. However the DC-10 had a leg up in that it was cheaper, though it wasn't as advanced. As well it was designed from the start knowing that it would one day become an intercontinental aircraft. So in '72 the -40 flew, followed a few months later by the -30. Lockheed was very far behind in designing a long range Tristar. And this long range could only be accomplished with a trade off, the length of the plane and capacity were cut down on the -500. This wasn't an appealing feature to most airlines. As such it was sold to only a hand ful of airlines
Everyone has their favorite between the 2 trijets. The Tristar's limited success wasn't based on design, it was very advanced, it was all timing. Someone had to be the looser and it was Lockheed.
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 411 times:
Interesting subject this one. Personally I think both airplanes were good, DC-10 had a good background potential orders specially from Europe, following the sucess of the DC-8 and DC-9, so it was just a matter of keep marketing the plane to those airlines ( ex: KLM, SWISSAIR, SAS, Iberia, Alitalia, Finnair ) also in USA we had UNITED ( a strong Douglas supporter ). About L1011 it was an outsider comming after a long sleep, and I think they came well, they got good orders from good airlines that were in the past loyal to them ( EASTERN, TWA, Air Canada, Delta ) and also new ones like BA, Pan Am. So I think what killed Lockheed was when they said they will stop thye production. Some airlines ordered the plane ( Air India ) and drop it after this. Douglas kept going with the MD11 and I think Lockheed could carry on still with a refined version with the new RR and have a sucessfull aircraft, but that's another story. But... don't forget, Lockheed sometimes come with new things and we never know if in the future they have a new airliner, let's pray for that!
CV880 From United States, joined Mar 2007, 612 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 412 times:
Let's not forget that the DC-10 was offered in three versions from the very beginning. This allowed MD to capture a wider segment of the market. At the time, several European carrier were grouped in an informal consortium (LH, KLM, UTA, etc.) and the consensus amongst them was that the DC-10-30 would offer more range and flexibility.
Nonetheless, I'm told that the engineering departments of KLM and United both strongly favored the L1011.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 1999, 319 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined May 1999, 2083 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
