Tristar4ever From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 84 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
My only experience of the tristar is flying those dreaded charter flights from the uk to canada on Air Transat, actauly they`re a great airline with really good service, just no leg room!
specificaly several trips from Belfast to Toronto, much as I love the tristar it seems that when stuffed with 360 pax and loads of baggage they really strugle to get off the ground, I remember the aircraft on all flights seemingly unsing all of the available runway then finaly begining to climb, however the climb rate seemed incredibly slow, the nose was pitched up but the aircraft appeared to be hardly climbing at all. I remember seeing an ATA tristar at gatwick, it used all the runway climbed away pitched up but not climbing that fast compared to other aircraft. I hve flown on Air Transats tristar 500`s and they understandably have much better take off performance.
Is this just my imagination, or does the tristar in charter config have poor take off performance???????
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2095 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1084 times:
Of course the L-1011 "in charter configuration" is going to climb slower than if the seats had more pitch. Quite simply, such a sardine can flight is operating closer to the MGTOW of the aircraft. It is heavier. A heavier aircraft will take more runway to get airborne and will climb slower.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Delta73Spilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
To answer your question TriStar, yes the TriStar -1 is underpowered at max T/O weight compared to the newer jets. I have flown the -1,-200 and -500 and the bigger engines on the latter 2 models make a world of difference! The configuration of the plane has nothing to do with it, a 1011 on a cross Atlantic flight will always be right at Max Weight, regardless of pasenger seating (more or less). It uses a tremendous amount of Rwy compared with a 747-400, its initial climb is rather weak (especially on a hot day!), and once it passes on the high 20's upwards, its rate of climb can best be described as anemic! Once it levels off though, it sure loves to cruise at .84 plus, blowing by most others (especially any Airbus tooling along up there!). The later 1011s though with the extra 8,000 lbs per engine are awesome planes powerwise!
Still, the Tritanic will always have the prime real estate in my heart!
Delta73Spilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
I flew the bigger motor TriStars back in 95 for an outfit that is no longer with us...., we had only one type -524's and for the life of me I can't remember a whole lot of numbers!
Sorry I couldn't help you!