Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About DL L-1011 On ATL-MAD-BCN In 1997  
User currently offlineScooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 852 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2756 times:

Does anyone have any idea what type of L-1011 DL flew on the ATL-MAD-BCN route back in 1997? Was it the -1 or the -5? Or did they use both types?

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 852 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2751 times:

Actually, I think I just found the answer by browsing the photo database - looks like it was nearly always the L-1011-3.

User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2738 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2721 times:

Quoting Scooter (Reply 1):

Actually, I think I just found the answer by browsing the photo database - looks like it was nearly always the L-1011-3.

I flew that route on late January 1997 and I would have said it was a -5.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

It would have been an L-1011-500.

There seem to be some confusion on what to call them?

Quoting UALWN (Reply 2):
I would have said it was a -5.
Quoting Scooter (Reply 1):
looks like it was nearly always the L-1011-3.
Quoting Scooter (Thread starter):
-1 or the -5?

Marketing = L-1011-500

Officially = L-1011-385-3

OAG = L-15


User currently offlineaa61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 2):
I would have said it was a -5.

Agreed. I was always under the impression that DL used the 500 for DFW-HNL/ATL-HNL ATL-Europe flights

From wiki:

L-1011-500

The L-1011-500 (FAA certification L-1011-385-3) was the last L-1011 variant to enter production. The L-1011-500 was a longer-range variant first flight tested in 1978. Its fuselage length was shortened by 14 feet (4.3 m) to accommodate higher fuel loads. It also utilizes the more powerful engines of the -200 series. The -500 variant was popular among international operators and formed a significant portion of the L-1011 fleet of Delta and British Airways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar

Didn't realize Lockheed shortened the body by 15 feet for the 500.



Go big or go home
User currently onlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

L1011-500 for sure. God I miss that aircraft...

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting aa61hvy (Reply 4):
Didn't realize Lockheed shortened the body by 15 feet for the 500.


They didn't! The basic L-1011-1 fuselage was shortened by 100 inches forward of the wing (fuselage station 739 to 839) and 62 inches aft of the fuselage (fuselage station 1543 to 1512) to create the L-1011-500. That is a total of 162 inches or 13 feet 6 inches.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24786 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting aa61hvy (Reply 4):
The -500 variant was popular among international operators and formed a significant portion of the L-1011 fleet of Delta and British Airways

The L-1011-500 wasn't a very significant portion of the BA L-1011 fleet (6 of 23 aircraft). And they were only operated for 3 to 4 years before being sold to the RAF in 1983. BA later leased 2 -500s from Sri Lankan (then Air Lanka) for 3 years (1985-88).

The shortened fuselage and resulting reduced passenger/cargo capacity made the L-1011-500 less attractive economically than the DC-10-30.


User currently offlineScooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 852 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2229 times:

It's odd that everyone is nearly positive it was a -500, yet there isn't a single picture of a DL L-1011-500 @ MAD in the database. Seems to be conflicting information...

User currently offlineaa61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):
The L-1011-500 wasn't a very significant portion of the BA L-1011 fleet (6 of 23 aircraft). And they were only operated for 3 to 4 years before being sold to the RAF in 1983. BA later leased 2 -500s from Sri Lankan (then Air Lanka) for 3 years (1985-88).

Take it up with Wikipedia then. Just a quote.



Go big or go home
User currently onlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 500s were really the only ones flying TATL for DL, at least during that period.

User currently onlinetimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

Dunno which period, but DL did send their -250s transatlantic, didn't they?

User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3477 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Officially = L-1011-385-3



I did not know there was such thing as L-1011-385-3. I learn something new .
 


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

Quoting timz (Reply 11):
Dunno which period, but DL did send their -250s transatlantic, didn't they?

Yes, don't forget about the -250.....they were converted from -100s, specifically for the TATL routes, out of ATL. Not sure if I got this right, but they may have been in service before we ever got any -500s.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4357 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

A superb Aircraft, it is much missed.



Am I correct in thinking Delta converted their own Tristars to the -250 standard ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineTriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4692 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

Yes, six -1's were converted to the -250 standard soon after the production line had closed.


Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting TriStar500 (Reply 15):
Yes, six -1's were converted to the -250 standard soon after the production line had closed.

There were also two -200s, leased from TW, to be used on the first TATL routes. Later a DL -100 was converted to a -200.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
There were also two -200s, leased from TW, to be used on the first TATL routes. Later a DL -100 was converted to a -200.


TWA never owned or operated the L-1011-200, all their L-1011's were powered by RB211-22b engines therefore either L-1011-1 or -100's. s/n 1108 and 1109 (N81028 and 31029) were leased by TWA to Delta and both were L-1011-100's.

Delta converted one L-1011-1 to a -200 (RB211-524 engines) that being s/n 1151 (N724DA).


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1607 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 17):
TWA never owned or operated the L-1011-200, all their L-1011's were powered by RB211-22b engines therefore either L-1011-1 or -100's. s/n 1108 and 1109 (N81028 and 31029) were leased by TWA to Delta and both were L-1011-100's.

I stand corrected........One of my books says L1011-200 and the other says L1011-100...I can remember clearly, when I was working that it was stated that they were -200s.......oh, well.......I guess there was a difference between the -1 and the -100.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

Quoting aa61hvy (Reply 4):
Didn't realize Lockheed shortened the body by 15 feet for the 500.

Yep, basically the little aft "mini cabin" is missing. Non-reved back there many times on ATL-MCO. God that garlic lasagna was DISGUSTING; 'stank' up the whole cabin.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4357 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

Pretty unusual, an Airline themselves extensively modifying one of their Aircraft.



That said, I think the -250 is the best looking Tristar of all, with the long body and the fairing beneath the # 2 engine inlet.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1466 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 18):
.......I guess there was a difference between the -1 and the -100.


The L-1011-100 is a -1 with RB211-22b engines that has one (1) wet bay (for fuel) added to the center wing box along with structural and other modification that allow increasing the MTOW from 430,000 lbs to 466,000 lbs.

The -200 has the same modifications as the -100 but uses RB211-524 engines. -200 MTOW is 474,000 lbs.

The -250 has additional structural modifications and three (3) wet bays added to the center wing box, with the MTOW increased to 510,000 lbs.

The -150 has one (1) wet bay like a -100 but the structural modifications are different and is for early build L-1011's (below s/n 1052).

There are also -40's and -50's that had minor structural and landing gear modifications that allowed increasing of the MTOW to 440,000 or 450,000 lbs.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
That said, I think the -250 is the best looking Tristar of all, with the long body and the fairing beneath the # 2 engine inlet.

That is called the "frisbee fairing" it was added to reduce the noise in the aft cabin. It was originally available as a service bulletin modification (only TWA bought it). Later it was added in production. All the -500's had it and all other models from s/n 1169.


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1380 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
Pretty unusual, an Airline themselves extensively modifying one of their Aircraft.

Didn't UA and DL also upgrade most to all of their DC-8s to -71s?



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 weeks ago) and read 1338 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 22):
Didn't UA and DL also upgrade most to all of their DC-8s to -71s?

DL did all but one of their own stretch eights to -71s as well as some for UPS and others. I think all of UA's were done outside the company, probably by Cammacorp, the maker of the conversion.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1378 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 weeks ago) and read 1333 times:

Quoting aa61hvy (Reply 4):
Agreed. I was always under the impression that DL used the 500 for DFW-HNL/ATL-HNL ATL-Europe flights


Well from DFW to HNL the -250 primarily operated that rte (DL 17 originating in ATL and 16 from HNL), I recall a rare sub of a -500. The -500 did do most of the ATL-HNL runs had a stop, the one direct which was Flt 53 was operated with the -500. ATL Eurpoe was a combination of -250's and -500's.



Treat others as you expect to be treated!
25 474218 : Delta's -500 entered service in 1979. The first -250's entered service in 1987. On 30 August 1985 Delta and Lockheed signed a contract where Lockheed
26 aa61hvy : Good to hear from you old friend. The one time I took a DL L1011 on DFW-HNL it was a 500. I guess I was lucky.
27 ATA L1011 : From you to man, hope you have been well!. Yes you were lucky, I use to work that FLT faithfully almost always full.
28 tristarcrazy : The -500's were used on ATL/DFW-HNL until the late 80's in three class service. The -250's didn't start coming on line till '86 and two class service
29 tristarcrazy : I meant the ATL-MAD-BCN run
30 Post contains images mayor : Time for a tuneup on my memory clock, I guess.
31 ATA L1011 : Yeah well I'm referring to 92 on when I started FLT 17 was -250 exclusively, a 500 sub happened every now and then. FLT 53 from the Late 90's was ATL
32 FlyASAGuy2005 : Atlanta was a different airport back then. I'm not sure we will ever see widebodies on D again; ever.
33 ATA L1011 : I know I know, times have really changed. The 90's were a great era for us as enthusiast, older types like DC-10, Tristar, 742, 727 operating along s
34 474218 : I can't remember things either, but I have a lot of left over reference material. In November 1999, I flew ATL-MIA on DL it was scheduled to be a -1
35 ATA L1011 : Yikes, thats crazy. That happened to me once before in the Tristar days, I was non rev'n from LA to ATL. Scheduled to be a -1 booked at about 280 pas
36 tristarcrazy : Wasn't it about '98 when they remove the -500's from int'l flying and just flew them domestic? I flew a -500 from DFW-ATL and ATL-LAX. They had change
37 ATA L1011 : I think you are correct, if I'm recalling correctly it was by the end of the 1998 they were all gone from Intl routes.
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...
Question About DL In GIG posted Sun Jan 8 2006 20:47:32 by Hoya
Question About DL MD-90 Registration? posted Thu Jun 30 2011 10:47:08 by SESGDL
How Is DL Doing On ATL-ICN? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 15:51:33 by Goblin211
Question About DL JFK-EZE Flight posted Sat Dec 20 2008 15:18:23 by LVICS
Question About Seat Reservation On AC posted Mon Apr 28 2008 04:17:40 by AustrianZRH
Question About Non-rev On Delta. posted Mon Mar 10 2008 12:51:36 by JoePatroni
No More DL 764s On ATL-FL Routes Eff. Summer 08 posted Wed Dec 19 2007 15:23:13 by 1337Delta764
Question About Name Change On FI Booking posted Tue Jun 19 2007 06:23:13 by TIA
Question About DL Skymiles, Car Rentals, Hotel... posted Sat May 19 2007 21:12:17 by Mike89406
Question About DL's Flight Schedule posted Wed Apr 18 2007 01:37:12 by Mike89406