Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If Lockheed Was To Design A Modern Airliner?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3613 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8217 times:

Seeing how the L1011 was such a well built airliner, I wonder, if Lockheed Martin, decided that they wanted to go back into the airliner business, and chooses to go after the B787/A350 market, or better yet the 77W market, what could you see them doing?

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8191 times:

If they built an airliner like they are building the F-35, expect it to be years late, overpriced and overweight.


What the...?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 2, posted (2 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8181 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Seeing how the L1011 was such a well built airliner

Well engineered, yes. Well manufactured, yes. But a market failure...so not something that they necessarily want to repeat.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
if Lockheed Martin, decided that they wanted to go back into the airliner business, and chooses to go after the B787/A350 market, or better yet the 77W market, what could you see them doing?

If we discard the very difficult to answer question of "Why?"...I think the only thing they could do would be to attack the 737/757 area with a new design. They could beat Airbus/Boeing to the next all new type. But, in order to have enough advantage to overcome the pretty huge aversion many customers may have to a whole "new" OEM, it would have to be a major jump, which I think means a whole new configuration.

Tom.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 8168 times:

Having worked for Lockheed for over half my life, all of it (except for six weeks) on the commercial side, I can assure you there is no possibility of them getting back in the commercial market, in the foreseeable future. When the phase out of the L-1011 was announced in December 1981 (actually December 7th Peril Harbor Day, how fitting) the die was cast, Lockheed would be exclusively a military contractor in the future. And you can talk about the delays, cost overruns and cancelled contracts but over the last 30 years they have done that very well at it, after all they have been the #1 defence contractor for several years running.

Now could they design and produce a new modern airliner, if they choose to, sure they could. They have the engineering staff, they have the production staff and they have the facilities (the L-1011 assembly building along with the paint shop and flight test hangers are still in Palmdale) the only thing they lack is the one thing that stopped use from many different L-1011 projects that were proposed after the phase out. Without a guarantee of a profit the board just would not authorize anything!


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3547 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As close to commercial manufacture you'll see is maybe being a subcontractor 737MAX Final Assembly /Delivery Center if Boeing needs more production lines

User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1543 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7508 times:

If Lockheed was to design a modern airliner....it would be proof indeed of the existance of God.

Until such time, don't get too excited about the prospect of a 2nd coming



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5432 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7181 times:

As long as this thread is just dreams and schemes, I hoped Lockheed would will the Navy patrol contract and restart the P-3 line. An updated P-3 program might have given us a low-CASM 100 pax short-medium haul civil spinoff.

Ah, well ... we can dream.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 7, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7034 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 7):
As long as this thread is just dreams and schemes, I hoped Lockheed would will the Navy patrol contract and restart the P-3 line.

The P-8 is so vastly more capable than the P-3 that I think this idea is even less likely than them re-entering the commercial world.

Tom.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6925 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 7):
As long as this thread is just dreams and schemes, I hoped Lockheed would will the Navy patrol contract and restart the P-3 line. An updated P-3 program might have given us a low-CASM 100 pax short-medium haul civil spinoff.

Lockheed won the competition for the P-3 replacement, called the P-7, in 1988 but lost it in 1990 due to cost overruns. The Navy wanted a improved P-3. Lockheed was trying to sell the a complete new aircraft including a new fuselage, wings, engines, landing gear, etc.


User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3784 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6355 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I think that if they wanted to enter the B748/A380 VLA market, they would retake the C-5 and make of it a civilian version, both in pax and cargo variants. But I don't think this will ever happen because they lost the contract in the 60s against Boeing for the design of a new large passenger aircraft, and even if they build a passenger C-5 they would have a hard time selling it to airlines. Did Lockheed ever consider selling the C-5 or the C-141 as a civilian freighter? Maybe that might work better.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineSwissVA From Switzerland, joined Jan 2011, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6277 times:

[quote=]If Lockheed Was To Design An Modern Airliner?[/quote]

There is a high chance I would be a big fan of it! lol...
Indeed we can dream can we...


User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6106 times:

Realistically, most people here would probably be complaining about how it would be just another "boring" twin jet like A and B's planes and how Lockheed has lost its sense of innovation, along with deriding it for not being a BWB or having open rotor engines.

It would quickly of course delve into a nostalgic filled discussion about the good ole days and how much the aviation industry sucks now and how everything is either a 737, A320 or RJ.
They will then proclaim that if they were running Lockheed Martin, their new jet it would be another Tristar or a A380 competitor, or at the very least have 4 engines, and it would be eating its competition alive and whatnot.

From Lockheed's point of view, with the large establishment of Boeing and Airbus, and a lot competition in the segments that A and B ignore, it would no doubt in up in another disaster for the company.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 9):
I think that if they wanted to enter the B748/A380 VLA market, they would retake the C-5 and make of it a civilian version, both in pax and cargo variants. But I don't think this will ever happen because they lost the contract in the 60s against Boeing for the design of a new large passenger aircraft, and even if they build a passenger C-5 they would have a hard time selling it to airlines. Did Lockheed ever consider selling the C-5 or the C-141 as a civilian freighter? Maybe that might work better.

In reverse order:

The C-141 (L-300) was offered as a civilian freighter. Lockheed even obtained FAA certification for the type. Slick Airways ordered four, but the order was later cancelled.

The C-5 (L-500) was offered as a civilian freighter but there were no takers and Lockheed never certified them.

The USAF choose the Lockheed C-5 over designs from Boeing and Douglas. The 747 was never in any competition with the C-5?


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3407 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5492 times:

I'm not sure the market is ready for a plane with the capactiy of a 737 the wieght of a 767 and the cost of a 747.

User currently offlinePacificF27 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5287 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It would be a 2015 model Electra-188. Much more economical than anything B or A could design and build! In my dreamland it would smoke the Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer products.


EVA is tops across the Pacific!
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5134 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
The P-8 is so vastly more capable than the P-3

On paper maybe. Boeing hasn't even delivered one yet.

I want to see a P-8 shut down two engines and remain on station for four hours!  


User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5133 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
The 747 was never in any competition with the C-5?

I don't believe that the 747 was even in any direct competition with the C-5, however much of the knowledge gained from the Boeing bid for the USAF Very Large Cargo Transport was applied to the original 747.



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15739 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 9):

I think that if they wanted to enter the B748/A380 VLA market, they would retake the C-5 and make of it a civilian version, both in pax and cargo variants.

Those are much too expensive, inefficient, and maintenance intensive for civilian service. Even the military charters civilian freighters on a regular basis because it is cheaper. McDonnell Douglas and Boeing found the same thing with the C-17.

Quoting amccann (Reply 16):
I don't believe that the 747 was even in any direct competition with the C-5, however much of the knowledge gained from the Boeing bid for the USAF Very Large Cargo Transport was applied to the original 747.

The Boeing entry for the CX-HLS and the 747 were completely different designs. The biggest link between the two is that the JT9D which lost the military competition to PW ended up powering the 747s. The airframes had few, if any links between them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3407 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4633 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 16):
I don't believe that the 747 was even in any direct competition with the C-5, however much of the knowledge gained from the Boeing bid for the USAF Very Large Cargo Transport was applied to the original 747.

Nope, the staff that did the USAF bid were used on other projects ranging from the SST to contract work for NASA. The 747 used very Jr. staff and "leftover" spaces. It was supposed to be co-equal with the 737 project and behind the SST for resources, but reality was it was definitely a sold 3rd behind the SST and 737.


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 1):
If they built an airliner like they are building the F-35, expect it to be years late, overpriced and overweight.

Like the 787 and the A380?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15739 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 1):
If they built an airliner like they are building the F-35, expect it to be years late, overpriced and overweight.

Any contractor charged with making the JSF reality would have run into the same problems. The government asked for a miracle and set Lockheed up to fail, or at least succeed late and overbudget.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1997 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3710 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 9):
I think that if they wanted to enter the B748/A380 VLA market, they would retake the C-5 and make of it a civilian version, both in pax and cargo variants. But I don't think this will ever happen because they lost the contract in the 60s against Boeing for the design of a new large passenger aircraft, and even if they build a passenger C-5 they would have a hard time selling it to airlines. Did Lockheed ever consider selling the C-5 or the C-141 as a civilian freighter? Maybe that might work better.

I think anyone who thinks that the C-5 and/or C-141 would have worked out as civilian airliners should do some research and read some history. The C-5's began developing wing cracks soon after entering service and have been maintenance headaches. I seriously doubt whether either of these aircraft would have stood up to the constant use commercial airliners get. While many on this board love the L-1011, the L-1011, despite have many technological advances, was a loser for Lockheed and required a US government bailout to save the company from bankruptcy and liquidation. The fact they designed an airplane that could not use the P&W and GE engines used on the 747 and DC-10 shows how short sighted Lockheed's management was. Had Delta and Ron Allen not had such a fetish for the airplane, it would have been in front line service for a much shorter period.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days ago) and read 3570 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 21):
Had Delta and Ron Allen not had such a fetish for the airplane, it would have been in front line service for a much shorter period.

There was a reason for Mr. Allen's "fetish" with the L-1011. In 1886 Lockheed held a Operators/Suppliers conference discussing L-1011 spares and support. A Delta VP gave a speech on behalf of the operators, in that speech he mentioned that the L-1011 was the most profitable, aircraft in there fleet with each TriStar making $50,000 profit a day.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 23, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
The P-8 is so vastly more capable than the P-3

On paper maybe. Boeing hasn't even delivered one yet.

The Navy has had P-8's in Pax River for months. Unlike the commercial side, military flight test is a joint effort.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
I want to see a P-8 shut down two engines and remain on station for four hours!

I want to see a P-8 with the engine reliability of a CFM56-7...then we'll talk.

Tom.


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 21):
While many on this board love the L-1011, the L-1011, despite have many technological advances, was a loser for Lockheed and required a US government bailout to save the company from bankruptcy and liquidation. The fact they designed an airplane that could not use the P&W and GE engines used on the 747 and DC-10 shows how short sighted Lockheed's management was.

I would think Lockheed would have learned a valuable lesson from their L1011 experience with regard to specifying one and only one engine supplier for a given airframe. Being a trijet the L1011 was a special case, and any modern airliner without a #2 engine buried in the rear fuselage would be far easier to upgrade engines on as technology develops.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
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...
If You Were To Start An Airline......... posted Sat Apr 24 2004 02:19:17 by Greatansett
If EK Were To Join an Alliance, which would it be? posted Fri Apr 2 2004 20:20:28 by KL808
If you where to design a c/s, what would it be? posted Wed Jan 7 2004 06:05:50 by 7574EVER
If You Had To Start An Airline... posted Sat Aug 3 2002 09:00:15 by Aq737
Is It Possible To Design An Airport W/o Jetways? posted Mon May 27 2002 05:51:13 by FlyBoeing
If Southwest Was To Get Another Plane.....? posted Thu May 16 2002 05:31:27 by Flyingbronco05
"Hands Up If You Want To Make An Emergency Landing posted Mon Mar 4 2002 13:19:24 by Thom@s
If Delta Was To Be Bought Out... posted Sat Oct 7 2000 08:31:28 by Northwest 777
How To Become An Airliner Pilot! posted Sun Jun 7 2009 12:24:32 by TiktokJAKE
What Would Happen To Skymiles If DL Was Gone? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 21:57:02 by DLX737200