Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DC10 Vs L1011  
User currently offlinePennPal From United States of America, joined May 2004, 170 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10111 times:

As a big fan of tri-jets, I've always wondered how long the DC10 production run would have survived without the competition it got from the L1011, and vise-versa. Do you think McDD would still be building planes had it not been for the TriStar, and conversely, do you think Lockheed would still be in the commercial airplane business if the DC10 had not existed???

[Edited 2007-04-14 02:19:16]

[Edited 2007-04-14 02:20:24]

[Edited 2007-04-14 02:20:45]

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10060 times:

Quoting PennPal (Thread starter):
Do you think McDD would still be building planes had it not been for the TriStar,

One of the primary reasons McDD floundered in the commercial sector was its failure to innovate, in the face of Boeing and Airbus' newer designs-- prefering speed to market over quality of performance.

One could argue that lack of competition would've only worsened thus.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9985 times:

Quoting PennPal (Thread starter):
As a big fan of tri-jets, I've always wondered how long the DC10 production run would have survived without the competition it got from the L1011, and vise-versa

I think without the L-1011 Douglas would have sold another 200 DC-10 frames easily. I do not think production would have lasted much longer than it did since the MD-11 was on its way. Rather, there would be less production fall-off post 1981, not counting the KC-10 of course. Maybe it would have bought MD some time which could have greatly benefited the MD-11 in the long run.

Likewise the L-1011 would have sold much more if it were not for the DC-10. Specifically the L-1011-500 would have been a greater success had it debuted without any competition from a DC-10-30. I don't think Lockheed would have continued making commercial airliners however since there was no narrow-body family.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 1):
One of the primary reasons McDD floundered in the commercial sector was its failure to innovate

In a way the company was its own worst enemy as the McDonnell management more or less sabotaged their product by not funding the needed R & D. In spite of that, MD was not behind Airbus in terms of sales for long. The plunge from 2nd to merger in the industry was fairly quick.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9977 times:

Quoting PennPal (Thread starter):
Do you think McDD would still be building planes had it not been for the TriStar, and conversely, do you think Lockheed would still be in the commercial airplane business if the DC10 had not existed???

I do not think the McDD's DC-10 (or MD-11) ever brought the company down just because the L-1011 was offered. The MD-11 could possibly have been built today as a freighter, and this aircraft could have continued on a successful path. It was the failure and the lack of interest of the MD-90 and the MD-95 that finally brought reality to this company if you ask me.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9954 times:

AFAIK, since the DC-10, Douglas hasn't gotten a clean sheet design to fly and simply decided to trust older designs by modernising them in a way. The MD-11, while not clean sheet, could have helped them if it wasn't for the project being rushed the way it was. Had the MD-11 been designed properly, maybe they could have made a decent ROI for them to work on something doable, like a brandnew narrowbody airliner family that would replace the DC-9s/MD-80 and could compete against the 737 and A320, instead of coming out with concepts like the MD-12, which they probably knew would never be produced.

User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9926 times:

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 3):
The MD-11 could possibly have been built today as a freighter, and this aircraft could have continued on a successful path.

 checkmark  The MD-11's orders increased post 1994 up until production ceased.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 3):
It was the failure and the lack of interest of the MD-90 and the MD-95 that finally brought reality to this company if you ask me.

The failure to design a new wing was a big mistake. The DL cancellation of the remaining 100+ MD-90's that were on order was the nail in the coffin.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 4):
instead of coming out with concepts like the MD-12, which they probably knew would never be produced.

Or the even more far fetched MD-17, which didn't look a whole lot different than a C-5A.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9444 times:

Both the DC-10 and the L-1011 programs lost money for there respective companies, the DC-10 was a major contributor in the demise of Douglas and then McDonnell Douglas, great and historic companies and the L-1011 drove Lockheed out of the commerical market. Hind sight is 20/20 and if either Douglas or Lockheed had chosen to built a twin rather than a tri-jet there is a good chance both companies would have made money and that a small up start company from Europe may never have even been formed. But you can not change history (even though lots of people try) and while the programs lost money the aircraft themselves were great successes in service, both types flying millions and millions of passengers over millions and millions of miles.

User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8989 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 6):
Hind sight is 20/20 and if either Douglas or Lockheed had chosen to built a twin rather than a tri-jet there is a good chance both companies would have made money and that a small up start company from Europe may never have even been formed.

Not sure because it's not been so long that twins have been allowed transatlantic. (in the mid-80s IIRC)
So they would never have gotten this big market.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineLawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 970 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8895 times:

The DC-10 was designed (in a hurry) and built by McDonnell-Douglas in response to Lockheed's commercial market entry with the L1011 (and in all fairness, to AA's request), so should the question be whether Lockheed would've sold more L10s if McD-D had stayed out of the market completely?

There was a thread on here a good while back that had photos (of McD-D conceptual models) of:

- a twin-aisle twin-engine 757 size aircraft (I think)
- a twin-engine DC-10 derived wide-body jetliner
- the McD-D four-engined, double-decker MD-12 (?) that is the spitting image of the A380

I am too lazy to find the thread, but it had links to various articles on the web describing these aircraft


User currently offlineGlobalATL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8664 times:

It's too bad either model kept up with new technology with time. Just think what they might have been like to fly on in current day.

User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8649 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 6):
Hind sight is 20/20 and if either Douglas or Lockheed had chosen to built a twin rather than a tri-jet there is a good chance both companies would have made money and that a small up start company from Europe may never have even been formed.

That's not exactly true. Both companies responded to the several airlines that requested a third engine. Furthermore, twin engines did not fly the long haul routes they do now until the mid 80's; a third engine offered better range at the time. These airplanes were designed in the late 60's, it was the correct move. Douglas made the mistake of not developing a DC-8 twin engine narrow-body, which could have rivaled the 757.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 6):
Both the DC-10 and the L-1011 programs lost money for there respective companies, the DC-10 was a major contributor in the demise of Douglas and then McDonnell Douglas

The DC-10 had little contribution in the demise of Douglas. Before AA 191, the DC-10 was successful for McDD, just as the MD-80 series was a big success for the company in the 1980's and early 90's.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 8):
The DC-10 was designed (in a hurry) and built by McDonnell-Douglas in response to Lockheed's commercial market entry with the L1011 (and in all fairness, to AA's request), so should the question be whether Lockheed would've sold more L10s if McD-D had stayed out of the market completely?

AA had their eye set on the DC-10 from the beginning and never intended to buy from Lockheed. The DC-10 entered the market before the L-1011 and met performance expectations, unlike the early MD-11's some 20 years later. It was the L-1011 that was delayed with the Rolls Royce debacle. Safety records aside, the DC-10 was a more capable aircraft.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlineBrucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8621 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 2):
In a way the company was its own worst enemy as the McDonnell management more or less sabotaged their product by not funding the needed R & D

Wouldn't MD have an interest in funding R&D? They could have made more sales from better performance if they had re-engineering the MD11 wing. It's almost like MD were treating the DC10/MD11 lines as competitors....

Bruce.


User currently offlineJFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 486 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8174 times:

AA 191 was a huge blow to the DC10 program. It revealed the vulnerability of the DC10's two hydraulic systems vs the L1011's three (or was it four) such systems. The L1011 was regarded as the more technically advanced of the two. The UA sioux City crash showed us just how poorly the -10s hydraulic system was concieved, although depending on whom you talk to, that could have also just been really bad luck.

I spent 15 or so years working on the DC10. It was a comfortable, solidly-built plane, and generally quite reliable, although toward the end things were really starting to wear out. It was very stable in flight -- especailly on descent on a stormy day. The AA DC10-10's lower lobe galley configuration (about half the -30 fleet we had were configured with LLGs) was logistically challenging -- especialy on short flights where there was a high level of service ( I remember in the late 1980s a few ORD-YYZ flights with a full dinner service and 1:15 minute flying times). Whoever was working down there need to be very organized and good at thinking several steps ahead in order to keep things flowing for the FAs on the main deck -- quite a bit had to happen on the ground before departure, and when you had tight connections on multi-leg trip sequences, it was challenging. That galley was our sanctuary -- someplace to go escape and unwind.

I miss the DC10. It was a lot of work -- you almost always broke a sweat -- but it was fun, the way flying used to be. We flew that plane just about everywhere -- long haul, short haul domestic, transcon, Europe, Hawaii, Caribbean, Australia (briefly). I know it sounds schmaltzy, but I'm I'm kind of honored that it was once such a big part of my life .

There's a great book about the DC10 -- "Great Airliners, Volume Six" by Terry Waddington.  Smile


User currently offlineLawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 970 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7773 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 10):
The DC-10 entered the market before the L-1011 and met performance expectations,

Even though McDonnell-Douglas approved construction of the DC-10 after Lockheed had commenced development of the L1011, you are correct: the DC-10 was first to market.

Development time was reduced through simplification of certain components (that's what I meant by "in a hurry). For instance, the straight-through-the-tail design of the center engine eliminated the necessity to spend time on aerodynamic flow calculations that Lockheed performed to reduce drag from the s-curve design of their tail mounted engine's inlet.



Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 12):
AA 191 was a huge blow to the DC10 program.



Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 12):
There's a great book about the DC10 -- "Great Airliners, Volume Six" by Terry Waddington

Another interesting book (although somewhat sensational) is "Destination Disaster", about the THY Turkish DC-10 crash in Paris. I knew someone on that flight, sadly.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7723 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 12):
AA 191 was a huge blow to the DC10 program. It revealed the vulnerability of the DC10's two hydraulic systems vs the L1011's three (or was it four) such systems. The L1011 was regarded as the more technically advanced of the two.

Orders almost dried up instantly following the accident and never returned to pre AA 191 levels. The DC-10 had three hydraulic systems, the L-1011 had four. The Tristar requires the four systems because of the "flying tail" to have an acceptable level of safety.

AA 191 did not crash because of vulnerable hydraulics, rather improper maintenance procedures by AA. You can take any aircraft with the same damage and the result would be the same, the leading edge slats will retract. It was just most unfortunate to Douglas that it happened to a DC-10.

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 12):
The UA sioux City crash showed us just how poorly the -10s hydraulic system was concieved, although depending on whom you talk to, that could have also just been really bad luck.

Yes it was bad luck because it was a freak accident that had never happened before or since. But I have to disagree that the hydraulic system was poorer than any other airliner from that generation. A fourth hydraulic system in that situation would not have made a difference. Remember JAL 123 had four systems and what extra insurance did that provide?



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7643 times:

Anyone interested in the real story of the DC-10 and L-1011 should read the book "The Sporty Game" by Richard Newhouse. It is an in-depth study of the development and sales (aircraft sales being "The Sporty Game") of the DC-10, L-1011 and the 747. It describes how American begged McDonnell Douglas to abandon the three engine design and built the twin that American had originally wanted because Lockheed was over a year ahead in design. The book is out of print (it was published in the early 1970's) but I found a copy on e-bay several years ago.

I worked for both McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed and they both build (built) fine aircraft, but if you compare the features of the L-1011 and the DC-10 the Tri-Star was years ahead. Things like Cat-3 Auto-Land, Direct Lift Control and the Under Floor Galley, all standard on on the L-1011 and optional on the DC-10. Not to mention the L-1011's four hydraulic systems to the DC-10 three, and the L-1011's asymmetry detection system on the leading slats, a system not found on the DC-10 and a contributing factor in the Flt 191 crash.

[Edited 2007-04-15 06:17:29]

User currently offlineJFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 486 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7571 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 14):
Yes it was bad luck because it was a freak accident that had never happened before or since. But I have to disagree that the hydraulic system was poorer than any other airliner from that generation. A fourth hydraulic system in that situation would not have made a difference. Remember JAL 123 had four systems and what extra insurance did that provide?

From what I understand, one of the issues in both DC10 crashes was that all the hydraulic lines were ran parallel along the same locations leaving the entire hydraulic system vulnerable if an area where all the lines are concentrated (the leading edge of the wing on 191 and in the tail of the UA aircraft) were to suffer major catastrpohic failure. I believe the L1011s hydraulic lines ran along the aft edge of the wing box toward where the flaps are located and were less vulnerable to catastrophic failure than the DC10s because of these design choices. I wish I could remember exactly where I read this.

I suppose there is a point when a system of an aircraft fails that negates any engineering forsight because the failure is so catastrophic that nothing could have prevented it. It would seem that 191, Sioux City and JAL were all such crashes.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7523 times:

Don't forget that Boeing was also developing a widebody tri-jet, which it abandoned when it was clear that the DC-10 would beat it to the market. If either the DC-10 or L-1011 programs had been canceled before delivering the planes, Boeing may well have gone ahead with their tri-jet. The tri-jets certainly killed the 747-SP.

User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7475 times:

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 16):
From what I understand, one of the issues in both DC10 crashes was that all the hydraulic lines were ran parallel along the same locations leaving the entire hydraulic system vulnerable if an area where all the lines are concentrated

I understand your point, but I don't believe that the DC-10 was the only aircraft from that era to have that type of hydraulic system.

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 16):
I suppose there is a point when a system of an aircraft fails that negates any engineering forsight because the failure is so catastrophic that nothing could have prevented it. It would seem that 191, Sioux City and JAL were all such crashes.

 checkmark  Especially in the case of JAL 123. UA 232 was a miracle given the circumstances. AA 191 could have actually been flown to safety, however the crew unknowingly induced a stall, which was unrecoverable given the low altitude, by lowering the speed to V1. Climb procedures after an engine failure on take-off have been changed and a stick shaker on the first officer's side is now mandatory.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):
Don't forget that Boeing was also developing a widebody tri-jet, which it abandoned when it was clear that the DC-10 would beat it to the market.

That's true and from what I remember the artist impression looked very much like an L-1011.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):
The tri-jets certainly killed the 747-SP.

As much as I love the wide-body tri-jets, I think the later more improved versions of the 747 had more to do with the SP's demise. Granted the L-1011-500 took additional SP sales away for Pan Am, and AA phased out the SP's with the MD-11, but it's only a footnote, imo.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlineMilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2000 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7418 times:

The DC-10 was designed and built after Douglas merged with McDonnell Aircraft. And after May 25, 1979, not one more order was garnered for the DC-10. But to compare the L-1011 to the DC-10 is a joke, when it comes to business decisions and profitability. American and United didn't want to buy a Lockheed aircraft and with good reason. Lockheed had a history of design flaws and weak airframes. Quite frankly, the only reason that Lockheed is in business is graft on Capitol Hill, Sam Nunn, and Newt Gingrich. All one has to do is look at the design flaws in the C-5A and C-141. Lockheed lands contracts with cheap bids, and aircraft with structural problems, then gets Congress to appropriate the money to fix the design flaws and the cost overruns. The C-130 is a good aircraft, but should a modified 1950 design that sold 50 years ago for about $1,000,000.00 cost $40-$50 Million a copy today? The L-1011 had a better hydraulic system than the DC-10, but that is about all one can say was superior about it to the Ten. The Series 500 was too small, hence the few orders. The L-1011-1 while a decent domestic airplane, never had true intercontinental range. Hence the DC-10-30 had no competition from the Lockheed aircraft. The 1011 was designed to only have one powerplant, Roll Royce RB-211's. When the engine, a version of which is still in production today, ran into trouble, bankrupting Rolls Royce, Lockheed almost went under too. Only US Government loans saved them. If the GE's and PW's had been available, they might have sold more airplanes, too. Then there were the cabins. What an abortion the original layout was, with those stupid mid row dividers, and those overheards that were designed for a small briefcase, a pillow and a blanket. The fact the aircraft flew with a nose high attitude didn't help cabin service either. And while they might have been technically superior in low ceiling, low visibility operations, the systems were something else. Delta had to stop using the heating units on the service carts when flight attendants were shocked by them. There was a good reason that just about every major purchaser of the aircraft except Delta started getting rid of them early on. Actually Delta did too. They traded their first ten or so aircraft to Boeing in the original 737-232 deal. Delta then reveresed course and stuck with them, IMHO, because, #1, Management wanted to justify their decision to stay with the Tristar over the Ten, and two, Ron Allen almost had a fetish like love for the aircraft. If they were so great, how is it so few were converted to Cargo use? Douglas built a better airplane, hydraulic line location excepted.

User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25332 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7104 times:

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 19):
And after May 25, 1979, not one more order was garnered for the DC-10.

Sorry that is not correct. Apart from USAF orders for 54 KC-10 tankers after May 25, 1979, per the Boeing website orders and deliveries data, 45 commercial DC-10 orders are dated after May 25, 1979.


User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7025 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 14):
You can take any aircraft with the same damage and the result would be the same, the leading edge slats will retract.

Negative. The slats on an L-1011 or any other aircraft (757/767 and I'm sure there are many more) with rotary slat actuators will not retract due to a hydraulic failure. Hydraulic pressure is required to run the Power Drive Unit (PDU) in either the extend or retract direction unlike the slat actuator cylinders on the DC-10 which will rapidly bleed down if there is a pressure loss.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
and the L-1011's asymmetry detection system on the leading slats, a system not found on the DC-10 and a contributing factor in the Flt 191 crash.

 checkmark 

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 19):
Douglas built a better airplane, hydraulic line location excepted

CAT III Autoland, Direct Lift Control, and lower galley excepted.

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7024 times:

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 19):
And after May 25, 1979, not one more order was garnered for the DC-10.

Actually the DC-10 garnered its last orders in 1988. Nearly 10 years after AA 191.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25332 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7000 times:

Quoting Dl757md (Reply 21):
Quoting Milesrich (Reply 19):
Douglas built a better airplane, hydraulic line location excepted

CAT III Autoland, Direct Lift Control, and lower galley excepted.

Are you saying the L1011 lower deck galley was better than the DC-10 lower deck galley? Many if not most DC-10-10s were built with the lower-deck galley. All of UA's DC-10-10s had the lower deck galley to the best of my memory and I'm fairly sure AA's did also. I don't believe any DC-10-30s had lower deck galleys (and am not sure whether it was even offered on the -30) as longhaul carriers needed the lower deck space for cargo and baggage.


User currently offlineMop357 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6981 times:

I don't think I have ever taken the DC-10 so I cannot compare it to the L-1011. But my favorite airplane before the 777 came about was the L-1011. I remember taking the TWA L-1011's from JFK to MIA, and LAX. It was awsome. It was really comfortable with that huge Tv screen in the middle. Even though I was a child seeing that plane at my gate would always make my day. I think both the DC-10 and L-1011 had cruising speeds of Mach .88. Too bad they don't make planes that can gun like that anymore.

25 Dl757md : No. I should have said the L-1011 had a standard lower galley rather than the DC-10 which ahad an optional lower galley. DL757Md
26 JFKPurser : Lower Lobe Galleys (LLGs) were optional on all DC10 Models. AA operated many second hand -30s with this configuration -- most of which were ex Nation
27 474218 : Have spent over 30 years working on TriStars this is the first I ever hear of the service carts shocking the FA's. But even if they did you can't bla
28 ORD : From a 1979 L-1011 report... According to the Lockheed report, the L-1011 design was developed with the premise that any hydraulic system in proxmity
29 ToTheStars : Not on all airlines...TWA's lower galley only served the main cabin and ambassador buisness class. F/C had a full service galley between L1 and R1. T
30 Alessandro : I think one reason that McDonnell-Douglas managed to sell more DC10s are that they where part of a family of jets, DC8 and DC9 than the TriStar who ne
31 JFKPurser : I know TWA had a full galley up there and served FC from it. Which airline had only a coffee bar? Thank you -- this is exactly what I was talking abo
32 Cody : Eastern and Delta had a coffee-bar type contraption in first class as well as a small one back by R4. TWA not only had a full gallley in First Class,
33 DAYflyer : The problem with your argument is that Airbus would have been formed anyway. But the twinjet issue was the downfall of both companies.
34 474218 : That was not my argument but one made in the book if mentioned in reply 15.
35 EA CO AS : Huh? Then explain to me why DL purchased every L-1011 they could get their hands on when EA folded.
36 Pihero : ........... ...And the picture would be complete when one alludes to the hydraulic fuses Lockheed included in every flight control system, thus preve
37 Falstaff : TWA kept theirs until 1997. TW operated the L1011 for more than 20 years.
38 Dacman : Everyone can go back and forth about which aircraft is better, but to me the DC-10 / MD-11 will always be my favorite and I will continue to miss the
39 TrijetsRMissed : First off, the third engine did not kill the Tristar. At the time three engines was the best solution for that type of aircraft. The fact that the -5
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...
DC9 Vs MD80 And DC10 Vs MD11 posted Wed Nov 6 2002 03:05:27 by 727_Gal
DC-10 Vs. L1011, Which One Would You Pick.... posted Thu Sep 26 2002 01:09:24 by Deltadude8
Where's The APU Exhaust On The DC10 And L1011? posted Mon Jul 22 2002 23:08:20 by SJCguy
MD-11 Vs. L1011 What Do You Think? posted Tue Jul 17 2001 01:22:42 by DeltaBoy777
DC10 Vs MD11 posted Fri Nov 3 2000 11:52:57 by Megatop
Dc10 Vs A330 On Longhaul posted Sat Sep 2 2000 18:50:34 by Tg 747-300
A300 VS L1011 VS DC-10 posted Wed Jun 21 2000 04:58:34 by Pacific
DC10's And L1011's posted Sat Apr 24 1999 00:11:09 by Cody
L1011 & DC10 posted Wed May 17 2006 02:38:34 by AIRCANL1011
Was The 767 Boeing Answer To The L1011 And DC10 posted Sat Feb 26 2005 20:58:25 by 747400sp