Airlanka From Australia, joined Oct 1999, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1008 times:
It is a grand old bird; beautiful in that red AirLanka livery. Was the workhorse for UL for many years. The FMS (Flight Management System) on board UL -500s were so advanced. Sad that the timing of the introduction of the a/c was not all good, as boeing was testing the 747 idea. Otherwise it could have made it good.
I have flown AirLanka's L-1011 CMB,BKK,DXB,LGW,KUL,SIN and the last flight was SIN-CMB in Aug 1999. I call it one of the most comfortable rides for any a/c.
DL Widget Head From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2102 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1005 times:
This great aircraft caused me to fall madly in love with aviation. I have flown on the L1011 probably over a thousand times (first with EA now with DL) and have loved every minute. I will miss them tremendously as DL only has 8 in service and these will soon retire.
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1000 times:
What L-1011 dosent look good . Its a beautifull plane , look at hoe elegant this plane is its just a work of art . All the liveries looked great in this plahne especially the new and old Saudi livery . Delta , TWA, Eastern they all looked great in the L-1011 . I had the great privilege to fly on board one of those magnificent birds and it is one of the smoothest rides ever . If u live in the states hurry up and book a flight on one od DL's L-1011'S as soon as possible as they are leaving soon.
Western737 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 489 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 980 times:
Unfortunately, I guess I rode at wrong time. Delta were getting rid of them so they didnt keep them in good shape when I flew it. I wasn't impressed with L-1011 and wasn't really feel sad to see them go. I looked at that plane as we left the gate and said to myself that I am glad that I dont have to fly that junk plane again. I flew 767-400 on next flight after long flight on L-1011 and that is when I finally was comfortable and relaxed.
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 970 times:
The problem with L-1011 freighters is their payload/range characteristics. Even the most advanced long-body L-1011, the -250, cannot line up with the DC-10-30 in terms of payload/range (although they are very close to the 'Ten'). The L-1011 freighter, the -200 being the most suitable model, is ideal for max. cargo volume needs on medium- to long-haul operations but not for max. payload on long routes.
Shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 964 times:
The last great 'designed' airliner, where it appears aesthetics were as much a part of the design brief as performance, engineering and comfort.
Had the Lockheed/RR development partnership been blessed with angels and not demons, there is no doubt that there would be a family of Lockheed twins and maybe even four ups, plying todays air routes, and the world of commercial aviation would be a much happier place for us pax!
What would they have called the twin? L2011?? and maybe the four up L4011?
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1419 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 951 times:
Wonderful, big jet its my favorite by far. We have 18 of them in service and I enjoy flying on them any chance I can get. I especially like the 1/150's because the noises those RR 211-22b's make is just one of the best sounds especially on start up/taxi/ and when the apply power.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 946 times:
I think if Lockheed smartly designed the L1011 so it could accommodate the Pratt & Whitney JT9D or General Electric CF6 engines in the first place, Lockheed would still be in business building widebody airliners even now.
I envisage in this alternative circumstance twin-engined widebody airliners using the basic L1011 fuselage design but longer in length and powered by 70,000 lb. thrust engines.