UAL727NE From United States, joined Dec 2007, 131 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9129 times:
So why don't companys use L1011's as cargo hualers? Now that ATA is gunna retire thiers why not pick them up and convert them? Are they not good enough? Your thoughts..
Gotta love 3 holers!!! MD11,DC10,L-1011,B727 for life!!!!
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1799 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9115 times:
A small number were converted to freighters by Marshall of Cambridge Engineering. They initially did the RAF tanker/refuellers, and then a few civilian freighters, but this was 25 years ago. There would be nothing left now, that could be economically used. They are all very elderly now.
N27UADIESEL8 From United States, joined Dec 2007, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8836 times:
We at Fine Air did operate one, and eventually had 4 operational when we purchased Arrow Air. As it has been brought up before spares killed the airplane. Lack of spare parts made us retire the fleet as they were due for a heavy check.
ExFATboy From United States, joined Jul 2003, 2123 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8524 times:
Actually, I asked the same question a while back - answer I got was that it's not that the L-1011 is bad, it's just that the DC-10 (and MD-11) are better suited for freighter operations as they have a greater payload. Since there are plenty of the Douglas birds around for conversion, they've gotten snapped up and converted first.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2806 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8506 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 1): They initially did the RAF tanker/refuellers,
Did any of the RAF Tristars have a freight door?
All those I saw had special containers that were rolled in through the L2 pax door, onto a roller mat in the aircraft.
EXAAUADL From United States, joined Jun 2006, 4083 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8388 times:
Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 4): Actually, I asked the same question a while back - answer I got was that it's not that the L-1011 is bad, it's just that the DC-10 (and MD-11) are better suited for freighter operations as they have a greater payload.
anyone know the payload numbers for the L10 versus D10?
NEMA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 538 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8355 times:
Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 4): Since there are plenty of the Douglas birds around for conversion, they've gotten snapped up and converted first.
Yep, i also heard in previous posts apart from there being fewer parts for the L1011 , running costs generally were uneconomical to consider too with other options that are on the market, not least, large twin engines. I would love to think they were kept running but it seems unlikely.
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
474218 From United States, joined Oct 2005, 3713 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8281 times:
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 5): Did any of the RAF Tristars have a freight door?
The RAF operates nine (9) TriStars: Four (4) Tanker/Freighters (with main deck cargo door), 2 Tankers (no added doors) and three (3) passenger aircraft with full interior.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10659 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5983 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 8): The RAF operates nine (9) TriStars: Four (4) Tanker/Freighters (with main deck cargo door), 2 Tankers (no added doors) and three (3) passenger aircraft with full interior.
The 3 passenger L1011-500s are ex-Pan Am. The other 6 are ex-BA.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10659 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4832 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10): Did the fact that LM pulled out of aircraft production, whereas MDD continued with the MD11 have a bearing as well.
Another relevant factor is that of the total 446 DC-10s and KC-10s built (almost twice as many as the 250 L1011s), almost 25%, including 45 commercial DC-10s plus the 60 KC-10 tankers, were factory-built as freighters or combis with a main deck cargo door. Having that design and development work done and certified when those 105 aircraft were built no doubt simplified and reduced the cost of subsequent passenger to freighter conversions. For the few L1011s converted it was a brand new modification without any previous involvement by the manufacturer.
A few of the DC-10s delivered with a main deck cargo door.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1799 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4168 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14): For the few L1011s converted it was a brand new modification without any previous involvement by the manufacturer.
The RAF paid for the design work for the freight door. The design was available for civil conversions, and a few were done, but not in any great scale
Marshalls were acting as official agents to Lockheed
UA76Heavy From China, joined Apr 2007, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4008 times:
I vaguely remember from an AW&ST article a few years back that the L1011 is missing a middle support (or something) down center of the lower fuselage that the DC-10s have. This gave the DC-10 the payload advantage and made it more attractive as a freighter.
UA76Heavy From China, joined Apr 2007, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3562 times:
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 17): Quoting UA76Heavy (Reply 16):
the L1011 is missing a middle support (or something) down center of the lower fuselage that the DC-10s have.
you mean the centre main undercarriage!!
No, it was structural and included in the design of the DC-10-10s.
TZTriStar500 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 936 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2765 times:
Quoting UA76Heavy (Reply 16): I vaguely remember from an AW&ST article a few years back that the L1011 is missing a middle support (or something) down center of the lower fuselage that the DC-10s have. This gave the DC-10 the payload advantage and made it more attractive as a freighter.
Quoting UA76Heavy (Reply 18): No, it was structural and included in the design of the DC-10-10s.
There isn't anything "missing" in the L-1011 structural design that makes it significantly different than a DC-10.
The major difference between the two in payload capacity that makes them good as freighters is that the L-1011 never had a standard body length fuselage combined with a higher payload like the DC-10-30. The L-1011-500 was shrunk to increase range with only a marginal increase in payload and reduced volume so it was never truly comparable to the DC-10-30. As you see from the payload below, even the DC-10-10 had a greater payload than the heavier weight standard body L-1011-200.
Quoting 474218 (Reply 9): The approximate maximum payload numbers are:
Dtw9 From United States, joined Sep 2003, 618 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2732 times:
The problem with the Tristar was that its floor beams were more critically loaded. So when the first attempts to convert them into freighters was tried, it was found that if care was not taken during the floor beam strengthening, it would add to much weight to the aircraft. Pemco tried in the early nineties and converted one aircraft that came in overweight,and was never put into service. In 1992 Lockheed attempted to design its own cargo conversion program because it felt that the Marshalls conversion was not easily adaptable to civil standards. After thorough analysis of the Marshall conversion and the problems encountered by Pemco, Lockheed dropped its conversion plan and agreed to work solely with Marshalls as the only conversion program.
SXDFC From United States, joined Dec 2007, 1318 posts, RR: 16 Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2732 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 8): The RAF operates nine (9) TriStars: Four (4) Tanker/Freighters (with main deck cargo door), 2 Tankers (no added doors) and three (3) passenger aircraft with full interior.
474218 From United States, joined Oct 2005, 3713 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1966 times:
Quoting Dtw9 (Reply 20): The problem with the Tristar was that its floor beams were more critically loaded. So when the first attempts to convert them into freighters was tried, it was found that if care was not taken during the floor beam strengthening, it would add to much weight to the aircraft. Pemco tried in the early nineties and converted one aircraft that came in overweight,and was never put into service. In 1992 Lockheed attempted to design its own cargo conversion program because it felt that the Marshalls conversion was not easily adaptable to civil standards. After thorough analysis of the Marshall conversion and the problems encountered by Pemco, Lockheed dropped its conversion plan and agreed to work solely with Marshalls as the only conversion program.
Source-Lockheed L-1011 by Philip Birtles
That the Pemco freighter was never put into service should be interesting to Tradewinds Airlines which operated for nine (9) years. The Pemco conversion was accomplished without any Lockheed involvement. However, when the Marshall did their conversions they had full access to Lockheed engineering data.
Along with the four (4) RAF tanker/freaghters Marshall also converted eleven (11) additional L-1011 to freighters.
In the early 1990's Lockheed also proposed to convert forty (40) L-1011's to freighters for UPS. Marshall would provide the kits and Lockheed would install them at their Greenville, South Carolina facility. UPS chose the A-300 and the Lockheed L-1011 freighter program was cancelled.
GARUDAROD From United States, joined Apr 2000, 1354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1917 times:
Some reasons why the few L-1011s that were converted to freighters wont be around much longer:
A)Spare parts are very hard to find.
B) Cockpit crew licenesed to fly the L1011 are in very short supply.
C) There is an AD requiring significant investment to upgrade the engines due on most aircraft.
All of the above were sited by ATA as reasons to get rid of their Tristars.
I believe there are still two or three operational freighters still flying in the world, but because of
C mentioned above, they will not be certified as air worthy until the mods are done to the engines.
Dtw9 From United States, joined Sep 2003, 618 posts, RR: 2 Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 23): That the Pemco freighter was never put into service should be interesting to Tradewinds Airlines which operated for nine (9) years. The Pemco conversion was accomplished without any Lockheed involvement. However, when the Marshall did their conversions they had full access to Lockheed engineering data.
I didn't write the book, I'm only the messenger
26 BAW716: I was involved last year in trying to sell off some L1011s that were sitting in Saudi Arabia...so I know a little about this subject. There are less t
27 Pohakuloa: forgive my lack of information on the issue, but which parts are the issues on these aircraft? as far as the replacements not being there?? if it is
28 Bennett123: BAW716 Did not know that they were still being actively marketed. Are you saying that half were converted and half parted out. If so, are further deta
29 474218: Further details available here: http://www.regencyprojects.com/aviation.html
30 EmSeeEye: You name it. Hydraulic actuators, flap actuators, hydraulic pumps, generators, landing gear "kits" to rebuild landing gear, landing gear parts themse
31 Bongodog1964: The initial conversions for the RAF certainly ran way over time. I recall it was stated at the time that technical difficulties were to blame. Dtw9's
32 BAW716: There is an L1011 web site...I can't recall it's URL, but if you Google L-1011, it should come up for you. It will give you a lot of information on t
33 United_Fan: Also,isn't there a version of the RB211 that is practically worthless ? I remember seeing DL L10's scrapped with their engines stll attached...
34 474218: As I recall the delays in the RAF tanker/freighter programs at Marshall were not caused by the main cabin freight door, but by the addition of refuel
35 IFlyTWA: This site has detailed information on all of the L-1011s. http://www.eucomairlines.de/prodlist/prodlist.html The RB-211-22B. There is no one to overh
36 Bennett123: If the SV fleet are unsellable, it does not look promising for any other parked L1011.
37 Pohakuloa: A big MAHALO!! to the both of you!. IU figured it was the "can of worms" i thought it might be. such a shame.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Dec 2007, 131 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1799 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2806 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10659 posts, 
From China, joined Apr 2007, 148 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 1466 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
