Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If Lockheed Produced A New Version Of The L-1011..  
User currently offlineMaxPowers From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 475 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

If Lockheed produced a new version of the L-1011, do you think they would be successful? Why or why not?

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBiggles313 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Economics of 777 vs MD11 have proven that the era of the trijet has pretty much passed... The L1011 is fundamentally a late 60s design concept, and if bigger engines had been possible, it would have been a boring old twinjet!

Note that the L-1011-500 "very long range" version has a full pax range shorter than the A330, which today is considered "medium range", esp. compared with A340...

LMCO has no interest in commercial aviation... But if Boeing or ideed AI were to build a trijet, I hope they give it a TriStar-style S-duct and all the other cool features...  Smile



User currently offlineTrickijedi From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1919 times:

First of all, I really don't think it's gonna happen. Like Biggles said, it is more economical to build a two-engine jet for medium to long-range flights than it is to build an aircraft with one additional engine. It's also cheaper to maintain and operate two engines as opposed to three. With the long-standing functionality of the 767-300, I don't see any reason to build anything with more than two engines. ETOPS is obviously not an issue with the 767 and most airliners are happy with them. So to answer your question, no I don't think that they will be successful. I don't think they would even consider it.

I am not a big fan of the Tri-Star (I think they are OK jets) but that had nothing to do with my views on the topic.



Its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than be in the air wishing you were on the ground. Fly safe!
User currently offlineTupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

It won't even get off the ground let alone be on paper...

User currently offlineCeilidh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Lockheed certainly won't build one ... but look out for another trijet offer from Boeing shortly. Don't forget, only having two engines causes all sorts of technical and certification problems - especially on the ultra long flights - and the pax are not too keen on them. Why do you think the A340 has four engines? Big grin Big grin

User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1857 times:


Hi!

I still think Lockheed will come one day with another airliner, it will be something really diffrent from what you have now. But if they wanted to produce a new L1011 they had to change the engines, the RB211 was not the best choise at that time, that's why L1011 was not a sucess, now they had to give various options otheriwse they would not sale that plane.
regards


User currently offlineFanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1995 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

In the 1970s, before the -500 was launched, Lockheed proposed two adaptations of its TriStar:

The first was a shortened 1011 twinjet, with the centerline engine plugged by a large bullet-shaped fairing. The A310 and 767-200 were much more practical designs.

The second was a stretched version to accommodate large hydrogen fuel tanks. If such a bird were to become reality, it would probably more closely resemble a 777-300.

As one who grew up in the '60s and '70s, I do remember how futuristic the TriStar seemed. Oh, the ravages of time! (But that's another topic....)



The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
User currently offlineBaec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

I prefers the Boeing 777s than these trijets, I feels bored on them trijets, I flew the DC10-30s(2x's) by British Airways, and Tristar 500 (4x's) by Royal Jordanian.

I wanna fly the newer planes, Boeing 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777....

Airbus 300, 310, 318, 319, 320, 330, 340....

I haven't flown on any commuter planes before.

Baec777  Smokin cool


User currently offlineILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

They would have better luck with a 2 engined L1011 but thats not going to happen.

User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Lockheed is doing great on the military cargo/fighter arena. They need to saty there in order to get money. They are becomeing a big hit with these government contracts they keep getting. Their time for commercial aircraft has passed. ditto for MD. Airbus and Boeing is now the dominant ones. Even the RJ market is filled with AIR, Embraer, and CanadianAir, and others. They are strong im military jet. so they ned to stay there.


"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineTrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3240 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

I do not think that will happen any time soon. As mentioned earlier, the functionality and economy of twins on long-haul routes with ETOPS clearances have made the trijet an obsolete concept. Certainly in the early 70s, when engines were not as powerful as they are now, trijet widebodies had a role but now with huge efficient engines available, 2 can easily outperform 3.

Over the weekend I obsrved both the jmc DC10 and the BA 777 in TAB and the latter took off much more silently despite being larger with bigger engines. It all has to do with the technology.

On the issue of 4-jet planes, there will always be a role for them because of purely technical reasons. Once planes are required for extreme ranges (A340, 747-400) or loads (747-400, A380) 4 engines would be needed.

Trintocan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
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...
Will Boeing Build A New Version Of The MD 11? posted Sun Apr 22 2001 19:29:12 by United Airline
Beta Version Of The New "usairways.com" Is Now Out posted Wed May 17 2006 07:23:00 by SonOfACaptain
New "beefed Up" Version Of The 744 posted Fri Apr 13 2001 17:28:20 by Raggi
If Lockheed Developed A New L-1011...... posted Mon Jun 21 1999 16:02:28 by DeltaAir
Is An E-version Of The Jeppesen Text Available? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 21:41:26 by Aak777
New Versions Of The A380 Range & Size, 2005-2015 posted Wed Oct 5 2005 17:40:45 by Keesje
E.O.W. Version Of The 170/190? posted Tue Feb 15 2005 19:01:29 by Jdwfloyd
Any New Pics Of The A380 Yet? posted Thu Sep 2 2004 01:49:46 by Ual747
Air Canada's Version Of The Facts posted Thu May 20 2004 01:01:25 by FLYYUL
New Derivative Of The 747 posted Thu Aug 14 2003 23:26:27 by Speedbirdasia