Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Lockheed Cancel L-1011 In 1967?  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6432 times:

In 1967, Lockheed began the L-1011 project. The L-1011 was actually Lockheed's second wide body project, they had the L-500 program they started in 1965, before Boeing started the B-747 project in 1966.

Boeing began their B-747 program because they lost the new wide body/very large cargo airplane program for the USAF to Lockheed. That program became the C-5A aircraft. GE also won and developed the world's first high by-pass ratio turbo-fan jet engine, the TF-43 which powered the C-5A.

But, Lockheed also tried to market the C-5A as a commerical wide body airplane, the model L-500. There were drawings shoiwing the L-500 would look similar to the C-5A, but without the swing open nose cargo door, or rear claim shell cargo doors. The L-500 also did not have the hump behind the wing the C-5 has, which is where the C-5 passengers are seated. Passengers on the L-500 would sit on two decks within what is now the cargo hold of the C-5. The airplane also had windows lining the fuselage, like other airliners.

No airline ever placed an order for the L-500, but in 1966, PA placed an order with Boeing for 25 of what became the B-747. Lockheed finally broke into the WB market when in 1968 it sold 15 L-1011s to EA. Lockheed almost lost these early orders, and the entire L-1011 program by selecting the RR RB-211 engine as the exclusive engine on the L-1011 (due to development problems and the RR bankruptcy).

Lockheed also tried to get into the international ranged B-707-320/-420 and DC-8-50/-60 market, in 1962. They tried to market their model L-300, a cilivian version of the USAF C-141 to the airlines.

Before the Lockheed offers for the L-300, L-500, and L-1011, their last commerical airplane offer was the L-649/-749/-1049 Connies (which also flew with the USAF and USN as the C/EC/RC/WC-121).

Should Lockheed have cancelled the L-1011 in favor of aggrssively marketing the earlier L-300 and L-500 projects?

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3035 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6386 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Before the Lockheed offers for the L-300, L-500, and L-1011, their last commerical airplane offer was the L-649/-749/-1049 Connies (which also flew with the USAF and USN as the C/EC/RC/WC-121).

You forgot about the L-188 Electra II turboprop airliner...

But anyways, no Lockheed should not of considered canceling the Tristar in 67. However it probably should of torn up the exclusive marketing agreement with RR and added the CF6 or JT9D (or both) to the powerplants list. Had they done that they MIGHT just of headed off the DC-10 completely if either UA or AA had bought the L1011 over it. One reason AA took the DC-10 was that the CF-6 was seen as a "safer" option (and lets not get into that debate) for them over the foreign RB.211. United even asked Lockheed to put the CF6 on the L1011... Putting the JT9D on would probably of looked like a bad idea at the time however, considering all the problems PW was having with it. The CF6 was something Lockheed already had experience with via the TF39 on the C-5 so i really don't understand why they didn't put it on the Tristar.

The L1011 was probably the better designed of the Trijet pair. The 18 month delay caused by the RB.211 difficulties really hurt it and gave the DC-10 enough of a lead to make it the numerical winner, however in the end both really lost as neither was very profitable for their manufacturers.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6311 times:



Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 1):
You forgot about the L-188 Electra II turboprop airliner...

Opps, forgot about that one.......  banghead 


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6283 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
In 1967, Lockheed began the L-1011 project. The L-1011 was actually Lockheed's second wide body project, they had the L-500 program they started in 1965, before Boeing started the B-747 project in 1966.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Lockheed also tried to get into the international ranged B-707-320/-420 and DC-8-50/-60 market, in 1962. They tried to market their model L-300, a Sullivan version of the USAF C-141 to the airlines.

There is one major point you are missing in your synopsis, The C-141 (L-300) and the C-5 (L-500) were designed and built by the Lockheed Georgia Company, The L-1011 was designed and built by the Lockheed California Company. While both companies were part of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation there was little interaction between the two. They operated as seperate companies, and while there was some loaning of employees (both engineers and production line workers) between the two companies, these had to be paid for from the operating budgets of the receiving company. The C-141 and C-5 were both designed as military transports and converting them to a commerical airliners would have been almost as costly as developing a completely new airframe and all marketing of them was as freighters. There were commerical orders for the L-300 and Lockheed even carried out a full FAA type certification but the order was cancelled when Slick Airways, merged with Airlift International.

The Constellation was not Lockheed's last commerical aircraft before the L-1011, that would have been the L-188 Electra.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6398 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6268 times:



Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 1):
One reason AA took the DC-10 was that the CF-6 was seen as a "safer" option (and lets not get into that debate) for them over the foreign RB.211.

Ironic, huh? Wonder if it was the same execs 10 or 11 years later that ordered the 757's with RB.211's, or even 10 years later than that that ordered the Triple 7's with Trents...  eyebrow 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2244 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6270 times:

I loved flying the L1011. It was truly a leap forward feeling aircraft from the doors into the ceiling, to the coat racks into the ceiling, the elevator into the galley etc. Hearing the low rumble and drone as the RR engines came to life and the huge puff of smoke/steam that came from them was always an exciting way to start a trip. Especially for a kid. I would always count the engines starting. These days you sometimes can't even hear an A330's engine start if there is any noises or announcements going on.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6252 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
Wonder if it was the same execs 10 or 11 years later that ordered the 757's with RB.211's, or even 10 years later than that that ordered the Triple 7's with Trents...

I believe EA liked the RB.211s, too. They stayed with them on their B-757s (wasn't EA the B-757 launch customer?). No, they (EA) did get the GE CF-6-50s on their A-300-B4s, as the RB.211 wasn't offered.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13220 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6219 times:

No. Tristar's rather indifferent sales record compared to it's nearest rival, would have been a dream, a bonanza, compared to what any military frieghter conversion would have sold.
Likely 250 for L1011, compared to 0 for the other schemes.
They could not even sell a civil C-141 or C-5 to any cargo customers, civil cargo versions of both were proposed at various times.

The wild card? What if Lockheed had won the SST contract, as many thought they should.
On paper, the B2707 was the better, before even major metal cutting cutting however, it soon became clear that it was not question of a few % points of performance, but if the thing would work at all.
Those delays, subsequent re-designs, meant that when the pressures on enviroment became greater, there was no prototype flying.
Making it easier to kill off, by those now fed up with the costs, delays, increasing doubts about SST viability.

Lockheeds submission looked a whole lot more pratical, likely, with the companies supersonic expereince, a prototype of their delta SSTs would have been flying much sooner.
Now whether it would have entered production, or if so, have done any or much better for sales than the smaller Anglo-French SST, (which would have been like a SST '767' to the bigger Lockheed's SST '747'), we'll never know.
But again, had this project gone ahead, no L1011 either.

So on the face of it, given Lockheed's desire to get back into the civil market at the time, they made the right choice with the L1011.
Which also was a very fine aircraft in it's own right.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 6178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do not think the L-500 would have been a winner against the 747. There was a reason Boeing didn't just do a passenger conversion of their CX-HLS concept that lost to the C-5 Galaxy.

The L-1011's EIS delay no doubt hurt it, but I also think Lockheed not offering any other jetliners in their portfolio hurt them, as well, especially once Boeing started playing in their (and the DC-10's/MD-11's) turf with the 767 and 777.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 6167 times:

I thought you folks might find these links interesting:

A Time article dated Jul-1968:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,712157,00.html

Quote:
1,000-Passenger Potential. It might also signal a new era in civilian-pas-senger and freight transportation. Lockheed plans to put out a nonmilitary version of the C-5—the L-500—by 1971. In an all-passenger configuration, the L-500 could conceivably carry up to 1,000 people, which would allow airlines to slice New York-London fares as low as $75.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-5_Galaxy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-141_Starlifter

Unrelated but also going on at (around) the same time was the L2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-2000



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 6121 times:

Never, and deprived us L1011 lovers of theh Tristar. its underfloor galleys, mid-service centre and lifts get me all excited and spooked at the same time ever since reading the ghost of flight 401.

User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6025 times:

When the Go/No-Go economic/financial decision came up after the major RB211 problem, the classic mistake Lockheed made was not to ignore the "sunk costs", hence, they put in more money after bad to justify the continuation of the program. This is constantly studied case in MBA finance/investment classes (like I did 2 semesters ago). In these management decision making process, you consider the incremental expenses and expected incomes for both states, and you never ever consider sunk costs up to the split off point. This was the major error in judgement.

User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6008 times:



Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 1):
The 18 month delay caused by the RB.211 difficulties really hurt it and gave the DC-10 enough of a lead to make it the numerical winner, however in the end both really lost as neither was very profitable for their manufacturers.

Timing is everything.

If the Turkish DC-10 cargo-door disaster had happened earlier and Rolls-Royce engine development was on time, who knows what might have happened.

I'm surprised no U.S. DC-10 orders were cancelled in 1979 after the AA 191 engine pylon disaster.



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 12):
I'm surprised no U.S. DC-10 orders were cancelled in 1979 after the AA 191 engine pylon disaster.

Because it was an addressable problem. Proper maintenance inspections and procedures ensured the problem wouldn't happen.


User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4079 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5920 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Should Lockheed have cancelled the L-1011 in favor of aggrssively marketing the earlier L-300 and L-500 projects?

I think you would have seen Lockheed bail out of the commercial airliner market much sooner than they ultimately did had they pulled the plug at that time As it is the Tri-Star proved to be a good alternative to the McDonnell-Douglas offering. They even convinced DL in the first post-Woolman era purchase to not go with MDD aircraft.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5912 times:



Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 14):
They even convinced DL in the first post-Woolman era purchase to not go with MDD aircraft.

Lockheed didn't convince Delta to buy the L-1011, the DC-10 did.


User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4079 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5882 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Lockheed didn't convince Delta to buy the L-1011, the DC-10 did.

Besides the DC-10 being hastily put together, I think that the passing of Mr Woolman in 1966 was every bit as much a factor in the DL decision. His business practice almost always focused on going with Douglas aircraft first and foremost.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5859 times:



Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 1):
But anyways, no Lockheed should not of considered canceling the Tristar in 67. However it probably should of torn up the exclusive marketing agreement with RR and added the CF6 or JT9D (or both) to the powerplants list. Had they done that they MIGHT just of headed off the DC-10 completely if either UA or AA had bought the L1011 over it.

But apart from all the problems with the RB211, the DC-10 was offered exclusively with the CF6 (except for the Series 40, though that was a niche aircraft for NW and JL anyway), and it became a success despite engine exclusivity. Would it really have made a difference for Lockheed to have offered the L-1011 with three engine variants? Nobody could have foreseen during its launch that the programme would eventually be heavily delayed because RR would almost go bust. The question should be: how would have eventual sales of the L-1011 turned out had the programme not been so heavily delayed and would this have affected Lockheed's decision to eventually leave the commercial aircraft market apart from keeping their customer support?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5738 times:



Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 12):
I'm surprised no U.S. DC-10 orders were cancelled in 1979 after the AA 191 engine pylon disaster.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 12):
I'm surprised no U.S. DC-10 orders were cancelled in 1979 after the AA 191 engine pylon disaster.

Because it was an addressable problem. Proper maintenance inspections and procedures ensured the problem wouldn't happen.

And there weren't that many U.S airline DC-10 orders to cancel that had been received prior to AA191. Only 24 DC-10s ordered by U.S. carriers prior to May 1979 had yet to be delivered. Cancellations at such a late stage would result in very large financial penalties. Apart from USAF KC-10 tankers, FedEx was the only U.S. airline that ordered more DC-10s (11 DC-10-30F freighters) after AA191 but that wasn't until the mid-1980s.

Not sure why carriers would cancel orders for aircraft they needed, especially when AA191 resulted from incorrect maintenance procedures.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2364 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, the question of the thread has already been answered. No, Lockheed should not have cancelled the L-1011 in 1967, and the reliance on Rolls Royce undoubtedly hurt the program.

But, the delay alone did not cost the Tristar. It was the DC-10-30's superior range and payload that ultimately did it in. A strong point that has been left out is, between 1974-78 there were ZERO new Tristar orders. Meanwhile, the DC-10 had an order surge at this time, up until the AA 191 crash. The 'mid-life' so to speak, of the Tristar project is when it suffered the most.

When orders dried up for the L-1011-500 in mid 1981, Lockheed pulled the plug on the aircraft altogether. Knowing the project did not have the backlog this time to withstand a drought in orders.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
And there weren't that many U.S airline DC-10 orders to cancel that had been received prior to AA191. Only 24 DC-10s ordered by U.S. carriers prior to May 1979 had yet to be delivered.

To add, only 12 orders were cancelled in 1979 after the accident. It was the lack of future orders that really hurt.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5556 times:



Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 19):
between 1974-78 there were ZERO new Tristar orders.

In March 1974 Cathay Pacific ordered 2 L-1011-100's, Saudia ordered two L-1011 200's in September 1974, in August 1976 BA order 6 L-1011-500 aircraft, which launched the L-1011-500 program, Delta ordered 2 -500's January 1978, and Pan Am ordered 12 -500 in April 1978, so while orders were few and far between there was sales during the 1974/1978 time period.


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2615 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Lockheed didn't convince Delta to buy the L-1011, the DC-10 did

ooooh, isn't that the truth!
And the negotiations with Macdac concerning the DC-8-61 most certainly sent Mr.C.E. (and Dolson) the message that the playing field at changed forever.

Years after the fact, Dan Haughton commented that one of his biggest, if not THE biggest mistakes he made while at the helm of Lockheed was the exclusivity agreement with RR for the powerplants, (and the lack of a "heavy" version of the L10, with a good payload and economics).

IMO, If one or the other, Lockheed or Macdac had decided to drop their quest for a medium-range tri-motor and go for the twin that Frank Kolk had originally requested, it would likely have been a win-win for all concerned (except for Airbus, of course).



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2364 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 474218 (Reply 20):
n March 1974 Cathay Pacific ordered 2 L-1011-100's, Saudia ordered two L-1011 200's in September 1974, in August 1976 BA order 6 L-1011-500 aircraft, which launched the L-1011-500 program, Delta ordered 2 -500's January 1978, and Pan Am ordered 12 -500 in April 1978, so while orders were few and far between there was sales during the 1974/1978 time period.

You are right about the DL and PA -500 orders. The others may have been options converted, I am not completely sure. I echoed what was written in Airliners No. 49 Jan/Feb. 1998, perhaps the writer meant during the years 1975-1977, or was a simple misprint. Regardless, as you mentioned, the point is the same. Not many orders.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Lockheed didn't convince Delta to buy the L-1011, the DC-10 did.

I think the DC-10's higher asking price is what ultimately put DL's faith in the Tristar.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4140 times:



Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 12):
If the Turkish DC-10 cargo-door disaster had happened earlier

Actually, there was an earlier DC-10 cargo door opening in flight. An AA DC-10-10 over YYR was almost lost due to the aft cargo door opening while climbing out of DTW in 1972. The cabin floor buckled and cables broke. Fortunately the crew was able to land at ORD safely.

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 12):
I'm surprised no U.S. DC-10 orders were cancelled in 1979 after the AA 191 engine pylon disaster.

The cause of the pylon seperation on AA-191 was the AA engine removal process, and a forklift with a leaking hydraulic system. The forklift was used while the strutwas almost fully disconnected from the wing, then a shift change, and the forklift lowered (because of the hydraulic leak), putting stress on the wing/pylon aft attachment, which was not disconnected, yet. This had nothing to do with the MD design of the DC-10 pylon or wing attachment points.


User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2231 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4035 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Actually, there was an earlier DC-10 cargo door opening in flight. An AA DC-10-10 over YYR was almost lost due to the aft cargo door opening while climbing out of DTW in 1972. The cabin floor buckled and cables broke. Fortunately the crew was able to land at ORD safely.

This incident happened over Windsor, Ontario, not Goose Bay. The aircraft returned to DTW; it did not go to ORD. The flight was AA 96, LAX-DTW-BUF-LGA.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
25 Ilikeflight : if the DC-10 had been a couple of years late and the L-1011 a couple of years early and Lockheed had not gotten in the middle of the RR bankruptcy fia
26 DAYflyer : I was going to ask if they ever tried that route.......thanks for that info. I was going to say, I think they would have been more than justified to
27 Stitch : I believe both were working on fixes, but the Paris crash occurred before they could be agreed upon and implemented. Also, while the AA plane lost so
28 WA707atMSP : Several books were published about the DC-10's design flaws after the 1974 crash. IMHO, the best was "Destination Disaster", by Paul Eddy. Destinatio
29 Alessandro : I think they should´ve gone for a Bistar (twin engined version of Tristar) alongside with the Tristar, the lack of family hurt the sales of Tristar.
30 WA707atMSP : The AA 191 crash did have one major impact on the DC-10 that is not reflected in the DC-10's order book at the time of the crash. In 1979, McDonnell
31 WA707atMSP : McDonnell Douglas proposed a DC-10 Twin in the 1970s that would have been a direct competitor to the A300. Like the "Super 60" DC-10s, the DC-10 twin
32 Alessandro : But Douglas got a twin already the DC:9, not as big as a Bistar or Twin DC:10 but still an option.
33 ImperialEagle : I believe that is was eventually determined that it had NOT been so modified----although someone at Macdac had signed off on it as having been done.
34 Post contains images Tango-Bravo : Indeed Eastern was, along with British Airways, a launch customer for the 757 program. If memory serves me correctly, the RB.211 was the exclusive po
35 Post contains images Asgeirs : Uhh, don't you think it's a bit late for that?...
36 LTBEWR : To me, it might have made long term financial sense for Lockheed to have cancelled making the L-1011. Of course, many of us here love the L-1011 for i
37 474218 : There is one point almost everyone that has posted a comment on this subject has overlooked: The L-1011 was far ahead of the DC-10, as far as design a
38 Post contains images ImperialEagle : That is true, but no one was in agreement with the engine! It still took quite a bit of sparring before Lockheed got everyone to go with RR. So IMO,
39 TrijetsRMissed : I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but one reason Lockheed kept the exclusive engine contract with Rolls Royce was to appease the British. Before al
40 KC135TopBoom : Opps, sorry. You are correct. This accident, along with several others, including the two WA accident, the NZ accident in Antartica, and, of course,
41 Tango-Bravo : Wasn't the B-377 Stratocruiser, like the 707 and the 747 as well, initially derived from a USAF specification for a larger cargo plane? If my memory
42 KC135TopBoom : Yes. The first C-97 (YC-97A) flew in 1943, IIRC. But it was based on the B-29 design and engines. Later the improved C-97 (XC-97A) was enlarged and b
43 LTU932 : There was also initially an option for aquiring a 757 with GE engines, but that part of the 757 programme was later scrapped and since the 757 was on
44 WA707atMSP : When American Airlines ordered 15 757s in early 1981, they specified P&W engines, too. AA actually signed a contract with P&W for engines before they
45 474218 : The correct name for the Lockheed twin engine L-1011 was not the Bistar but the L-1011-600.
46 Post contains images Steeler83 : Suppose they went with PW and/or GE options... Which is a bit of a shame. There is demand for widebody aircraft, but today's aircraft in this field (
47 474218 : As has been said many times over, the redesign to allow installation of GE or PW engines would have cost more than it did for Lockheed to wait for RR
48 Dtw9 : The DC-10's were ordered by Mitsui in anticipation of an ANA order. But as we all came to find out later, Lockheed greased some palms with a large su
49 Steeler83 : Aw man... So either way, the L1011 program was pretty much screwed from the get-go just about. Everyone knows about the expense situation with the no
50 RayChuang : A couple of comments: 1) Lockheed blew it by over-tailoring the L1011 around the RB.211 engine, which was running WAY behind in development, causing s
51 Revelation : I'm not so sure about that. Boeing did design on B-47 from 1943-1947, flew the prototype in 1947, and went on to build over 2,000 of them. Also in th
52 474218 : B-47's were also built by Douglas in their Tulsa plant and Lockheed in Marietta, Georgia. The same three companies also produced B-17's during WW II.
53 Zippyjet : Any pictures of the proposed L500 and super Electra? I'm too lazy to look. I'm in an A-Net writing Jones. Sorry for my late 2007 low profile. Regardin
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...
Air Scotland L-1011 In YYZ Problems? posted Tue Jul 5 2005 06:20:45 by ACYWG
UA BOS-LAX In 1967? posted Thu Sep 2 2004 04:54:18 by N801NW
Lockheed TriStar (L-1011-385-3/500) 4th Take-off posted Sat Aug 28 2004 17:43:40 by FJWH
UPS Enters Talks To Cancel $1.6B In Airbus Orders posted Mon Mar 1 2004 06:55:13 by Alexchao
Delta L-1011 In HNL? posted Thu Dec 4 2003 21:42:55 by Rooinc
Old L-1011 In The Middle Of Seoul... posted Mon Oct 6 2003 03:25:04 by Airtangora
Delta L-1011 In The Movie "swat" posted Mon Jul 21 2003 15:59:22 by Bigphilnyc
B747 Upperdeck Bars, Should We Put 'm Back In? posted Wed May 14 2003 17:44:32 by Keesje
Delta L-1011 In New York! posted Sat Dec 14 2002 06:46:37 by Apollo13
Did A Delta DC-8 Crash Into A Hotel In 1967? posted Sun May 19 2002 23:37:15 by 727LOVER