Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?  
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 385 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16548 times:

So, looking beyond just the total numbers built do you think the DC-10 or L-1011 was a greater success. I know Lockheed and McD were expecting to sell many more than they actually did but as the history of these two planes is told which do you think will be held in a stronger light?

If you look at numbers sold, impact of the airplane on the manufacturer, safety, history and airframe development, what the airlines themselves thought about the plane etc.. I think you will find there are many different angles to this question.

Let me know your thoughts.

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDelta777Jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1229 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16551 times:

Of course the DC-10 with 446 sold planes was more sucessful than the 250 build L1011 !

But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !



Fly easyJet
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2189 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16419 times:

As a Plane the L1011 was years ahead of anything on the market, too bad it came out while a big economic downturn. Also RR went bankrupt and delayed/put in jeopardy the whole program...making it a huge money sucking black hole.

The Tristar is easily the biggest money loosing program ever undertaken by any AC manufacturer.... so saying the DC was better is a moot point.

Both AC are my favorites and had the pleasure to fly in both...

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4978 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16397 times:

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 1):


Of course the DC-10 with 446 sold planes was more sucessful than the 250 build L1011 !

But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !

Most would agree that the L-1011 was technologically superior to the DC-10, but the sales numbers are with the MDD. Add in the MD-11 as an outgrowth of the DC-10 and the sales numbers increase even more.



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 16289 times:

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 3):

I would think that despite the D10 being a better seller, the L10 had far less fatal incidents.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4933 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 16264 times:

Actually the L1011 was a very safe aircraft with an outstanding safety record.

The reason the DC-10 won the market share over the L1011 was that the L1011

Had problems with the Rolls Royce engines which delayed production
The way it was designed made it difficult to "stretch" the fuselage into other models, the DC10 could do that.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16001 times:

If you look at sales, does the 62 KC-10's that the USAF ordered count towards the 446 sold? If so that narrows the margin quite a bit.

I know the DC-10 outsold the L-1011 and if you are looking only at the bottom line then the DC-10 is the winner but what about efficiency, technical specs. and market flexibility?

From a business perspective was the DC-10 still the winner?


User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4624 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15979 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 2):
The Tristar is easily the biggest money loosing program ever undertaken by any AC manufacturer.... so saying the DC was better is a moot point.

Did you forget the Convair 880/990 and Concorde? Massive losers financially, moreso than Lockheed lost on the amazing Tristar.

The L1011 was easily more technically superior and safer even though it sold less.



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4978 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15969 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 6):


From a business perspective was the DC-10 still the winner?

Take a trip to MEM sometime. DC-10's all over the place in active cargo service. Not many L-1011's earning revenue these days (if any).



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7364 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 15660 times:

The BA experience might be relevant here. They bought the TriStar 1, 200 and 500 but never bought the DC-10.

However they wet leased the DC-10 from NZ from May 1975 to 1979 initially to operate their LHR-LAX flights because of its excellent long-range capabilities.

Much later in May 1988 the first DC-10 was rolled out in BA livery after the airline purchased British Caledonian and their small DC-10 fleet. It remained in service with BA until March 1999 . By then all BA's TriStars had left their fleet.

I believe the last revenue flight of a Tri Star in BA livery was probably in April 1992, seven years before their retirement of the DC-10. (Here I choose my words carefully because as at April 1992 BA had Tri|Stars on lease tio KU. But when they were returned at a later date BA never returned them to service. Further BA subsidiary, Caledonian Airways, still operated five TriStars in their own livery when BA sold the airline in April 1995.)

It was the delivery of BA's 763 fleet that killed off their L-1011 operations. It was the delivery of their 772 fleet that resulted in the sale of the DC-10s they inherited.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24669 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 15625 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 9):
It was the delivery of BA's 763 fleet that killed off their L-1011 operations.

The 6 BA L-1011-500s were sold to the RAF in 1983 or thereabouts, 7 years before the first 763 was delivered. The -500s were disposed of as part of major BA route cutbacks then in an effort to cut heavy losses. Some of the routes being operated by the -500s were also cut then.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8254 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15601 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The L-1011 was a flying Porsche 911, it had to be a certain way and only that "way". The DC-10 was more like " chevy", as long as it was "good enough" that is all it had to be. The DC-10 was more accomodating to different engine types which the L-1011 was only going to be a "Rolls" plane. What realy differentiated the two was the DC-10-30 which was of course a full size almost 6,000 mile DC-10, the L-1011-500 was shorter kinf of a L-1011 SP.

User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15500 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Had problems with the Rolls Royce engines which delayed production
The way it was designed made it difficult to "stretch" the fuselage into other models, the DC10 could do that.

Can you expand (haha) on that? I've never heard that the L-10 was harder to stretch than the DC-10..



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4933 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15384 times:

Certainly. Read this report:

http://www.estg.ipleiria.pt/files/350738_BREAKEVE_4628e59997e2a.pdf

Lockheed had wanted to produce an stretched version of the L10, but the cost would have been prohibitive. It's explained in that report.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6375 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15352 times:

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 8):
DC-10's all over the place in active cargo service. Not many L-1011's earning revenue these days (if any).

Yup, very right! But it doesn't necessarily need to be because the L-1011 is an inferior plane. It might be service related.

When L-1011 production ended, then Lockheed also stepped out of the airliner business. While they still provide technical service to this day.

When MDD "merged" with Boeing, then Boeing took over technical service of the DC-10 - hardly the worst service provider in that business...  

There is probably a significant gap between the service levels provided to civil operators by Boeing and Lockheed. A gap which has existed since Lockheed ended airliner production, and during that time has made it considerably more cumbersome to operate an L-1015.

Need a spare part?

Boeing: Your request has been forwarded to our nearest spares stock. Expect delivery by UPS tomorrow.

Lockheed: Your request has been forwarded to our spares support dept. When they have found the blueprints, you will be notified about production schedule.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 15274 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Had problems with the Rolls Royce engines which delayed production


I think the actual delay was less than 6 months according to what I have read lately.

However, Okie was travelling very extensively at the time and every magazine, business paper, and TV newscast in existence at the time were really playing up the RR bankruptcy situation to the hilt. Often giving the perception that it was the end of the world for the L-1011 and the 747. The concept at that time of a government "bailout" for a corporation gone bankrupt was untested and lead to the call of "foul" by many as an unfair business practice.


Okie


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 15068 times:

The Lovely L1011 Tristar was technically in a different category than the DC10.


Way ahead of it's time.


And it never had a design caused accident.


A very special Aircraft, openly admired by Boeing.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19290 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14994 times:

I've often heard an analogy drawn between the DC-10 and VHS and the L1011 and Betamax. The two latter are the technically superior options, but for a number of reasons (many of them related to happenstance), the former won the contest.

User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14299 times:

Does someone care to expound about exactly why the L-1011 was a superior technological achievement vs the DC-10? I read this all the time, but have no idea what about the Lockheed plane makes it so special and ahead of it's time.  

User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4933 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14153 times:

Here you go, a brochure from Lockheed explaining the advanced features of the Tristar.

http://www.tristar500.net/features/l10features.pdf



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineACEregular From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14016 times:

I have only had two return holiday charter flights on the Tristar, totalling five sectors in total. (Caledonian Airways G-BBAI and Air Atlanta Icelandic TF-ABV). I can recall all sorts of details about these flights, whereas I often confuse details about various A320/757 flights I have been on because they are so commonplace. I feel the L1011 was always the more graceful looking and the cabin interior was cavernous. I felt priviledged to have flown on the Tristar because even then in the late 90's there were few around. Again comparing to the DC-10 for aesthestics. I always found the DC-10 strangely to my eye the more aggressive looking one. I hate the flap farings on the DC10, the through tail engine. To me the Tristar had a friendlier profile, perhaps due to it's dolphin nose.

I remember whilst working for a tour operator in Tenerife and we were awaiting a flight from Manchester, a colleague remarked "oh this one coming in is on the Death Cruiser" I was astounded that someone who I had thought would not have had an inkling about the aircraft operatied would say something like that, and I think for many the DC-10 has always had the 70's blip blighting it in people's mind forever after. However sales did outstrip the Tristar so really the DC-10 did something right. Does that really make it the better aircraft? I myself never flew on it, and I am not too bothered that I didn't. I would have kicked myself however if I had not logged at least one flight on the Tristar.


User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1925 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 13930 times:

Quoting flyabr (Reply 18):
Does someone care to expound about exactly why the L-1011 was a superior technological achievement vs the DC-10?

A lot of that stuff in the brochure is fluff. Two big advantages that the L-1011 had were a superior autopilot and DLC.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/72625/

Here you can see DLC in action when flaps are lowered to 30 (go to 3:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2nFYHKGuU





.




[Edited 2012-05-22 02:07:25]


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13733 times:

Did any airline have the optional lower lounge fitted on the L-1011?

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13634 times:

Quoting ACEregular (Reply 20):
"oh this one coming in is on the Death Cruiser" I was astounded that someone who I had thought would not have had an inkling about the aircraft operatied would say something like that, and I think for many the DC-10 has always had the 70's blip blighting it in people's mind forever after

In all honesty, the DC10 and it's successor the MD11 did kill a lot of people due to poor design.


No way around that, it's just a fact.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1925 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13588 times:

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 22):
Did any airline have the optional lower lounge fitted on the L-1011?

Only PSA ordered the lounge, but IIRC, Aeroperu (and LTU?) also operated them on ex-PSA planes.



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14464 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 21):

A lot of that stuff in the brochure is fluff. Two big advantages that the L-1011 had were a superior autopilot and DLC.

Direct Lift Control (by Mlsrar Nov 5 2003 in Tech Ops)

Here you can see DLC in action when flaps are lowered to 30 (go to 3:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2nFYHKGuU

Couple of contributors in that thread are no longer with us and sadly missed.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1925 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14355 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25):
Couple of contributors in that thread are no longer with us and sadly missed.

Yes, there has been a lot of loss to the A.net community the past couple of years...............



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 631 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14176 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 26):

When I look around... my coleagues are falling and I am one of the few left standing!

It is called getting OLD   


User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14160 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 21):
Here you can see DLC in action when flaps are lowered to 30 (go to 3:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2nFYHKGuU

Thanks for the links! Really informative. One can't help but wonder if DLC would have greatly helped with all those botched MD-11 landings that resulted in tailstrikes/bounces and even some crashes. I'm not bashing the MD-11, just wondering aloud...  


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyabr (Reply 28):

If it minimsed need for pitch changes... possibly?



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2079 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13771 times:

The problem with the Tristar was that the basic design was very difficult to adapt to a longer range variant .
Space for additional fuel tanks and more engine thrust as required by a longer range version were available but the increased take-off weight could not be absorbed by the L-1011's existing undercarriage.

Lockheed proposed the L-1011-8 in which six-wheel main undercarriage bogies (trucks) were to replace the four-wheel units of the original Tristar design, the wing was to be redesigned to house the larger undercarriage, requiring also relocation of many other aircraft systems.

As a result of this extensive modification, the price of the L-1011-8, however, exceeded that of the more straight forward long-range versions of the DC10 (DC-10-30/40) and Lockheed could not find a launching customer for this version.

In the Douglas DC10 basic design an additional ,two wheel, center-gear could be included, to satisfy the weight increase for a long range version, without an expensive re-design.
This early design decision, later justfied by sales results, stemmed from the company's awarness to design commercial aircraft with substantial growth potential both in terms of payload- through fuselage stretch- and in terms of range.
This played a significant role in prompting the KSSU (KLM,SAS,Swissair and UTA) and later other airlines to select the DC10-30 in preference to the proposed long range L-1011-8.

In service the Tristar proved to be an extremely reliable aircraft an its limited sales cannot be traced to technical difficulties.
However, the timing of the financial difficulties experienced by both Lockheed and Rolls-Royce, together with the initial inability to launch a long range version, killed in effect most of the potential sales in the critical period that airlines were ordering medium capacity long range aircraft (smaller than the 747)*. Due better pricing Douglas could walk away from its old rival. Lockheed was never able to catch up, despite the technical difficulties of the DC10 series.

* The L-1011-500 came to late and with reduced seating.

For more detailed info :
Lockheed Aircraft since 1913, René J. Francillon, ISBN 0-87021-897-2 , page 456-464.
MCDonnell-Douglas Aircraft since 1920 : Volume II, René J. Francillon, ISBN 1-55750-550-0, page 277

[Edited 2012-05-22 04:26:55]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1925 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12332 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 29):
If it minimsed need for pitch changes... possibly?

Spotters always noted the nose-high approach of the TriStar, this was because DLC minimised pitch changes.

As a passenger, I always enjoyed watching lightly asleep passengers get startled awake when the wheels touched the ground. It seems that no noticeable pitch changes and few power changes on approach gave no indication that you were near the ground.......

To correct what I said earlier, DLC became active at 33 flaps......there was a 30 degree flap switch that activated it. I could hear 411a and 474218 both screaming at me from up above.........Miss their posts and knowledge.

[Edited 2012-05-22 05:51:33]


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12173 times:

L-1011 sounded better!  

User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4883 posts, RR: 43
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11236 times:

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 22):
Did any airline have the optional lower lounge fitted on the L-1011?

In addition to the ones noted, Worldways Canada, a Canadian charter company also operated the aircraft with the lounge still installed. Whether it was used, is up for debate, as I have heard both yes and no.

I have heard the seats were sold. Or that is was used only during in-flight. Or it was never used at all, and only crew used it.

However, the aircraft was certified for its use. And every now and then when a Worldways L1011 safety card comes up on eBay, you can see it includes the lounge and exits. (There are two with the lounge installed).

Here is a pic, showing the left side lounge exit. The right side exit was standard, and used for galley service in non-lounge aircraft.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair T. Gardiner - WorldAirImages




Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3473 posts, RR: 67
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9635 times:

Quoting ACEregular (Reply 20):
I feel the L1011 was always the more graceful looking and the cabin interior was cavernous.

The cabin was cavernous because the stow bins were not.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7364 posts, RR: 17
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9608 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
The 6 BA L-1011-500s were sold to the RAF in 1983 or thereabouts, 7 years before the first 763 was delivered.

These disposals were far from the death of the L-1011 in BA service. Out of a total fleet of 23 only six aircraft were sold to the in the first quarter of 1983. This sale met two needs. BA needed to raise cash following a significant loss in their previous financial year. The Falkland's War had exposed the RAF's paucity of refuellers and of air transport capacity.

However the resulting fire sale left BA themselves short of capacity. As a result they were soon in the market for some replacement TriStars. The result was the lease of two aircraft from Air Lanka. L-1011 500 4R-ULA was leased as G-BLUS. Sister ship 4R-ULB was reregistered G-BLUT.

BA continued to operate the L-1011 into the 1990s. At that time they had a fleet of 13 aircraft in their own livery with the remainder of their aircraft being operated by Caledonian Airways.

Of these 13 aircraft two were based at LGW. They operated on holiday routes like LGW-FAO.

Two L-1011s, G-BEAK and G-BHBR, were being operated by British Airways Regional on flights to JFK from provincial airports including GLA. Once the long haul configured 763s were delivered from mid 1991 onwards two were swapped for the British Regional L-1011s. Those two 763s, soon supplemented by a third, continued to operate to JFK from provincial airports . In January 1995 two of three 763s operated by BA Regional were replaced with long haul configured 752s. The third 763 continued to operate MAN-JFK for a further 10 years. The operation was finally discontinued at the end of Summer 2008.

The remaing nine L-1011s were operating on short haul trunk routes in 1990 and early 1991. Prime amongst these were LHR-CDG where ~I believe every flight across the day was flown by the L1011 .

BA's initial batch of 763s were delivered in 1991. The first six aircraft, G-BNWB, 'WC, 'WD, 'WE and 'WF followed by 'WA on 25 April were all configured for short haul operations. They directly replaced on a one-for-one basis six L1011s. The first of these was parked up at MHV in May 91. It was soon followed by the rest of the fleet save for three aircraft that were transferred to Caledonian Airways. The last retirement was G-BHBM, one of the aircraft that had been operated by British Airways Regional. It was parked at CBG on 14 November 1991. This thirteenth retirement since the start of the 763 deliveries was soon after the 14th 763, G-BNWN, was delivered just a few days earler on 30 October Coincidence? I do not think so.

As far as I know every route that was operated by those short haul L-1011s is still operated today. The only routes that I know of that were operated by this type in the early 1990s and have since been discontinued are those from BHX , GLA and MAN. But, as we have seen, the discontinance of those routes was after years of subsequent operations by 763s or 752s.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9489 times:

Actually, the title of this thread is completely misleading. It is like asking which leader had a bigger success, Napoleon at Waterloo or Cornwallis at Yorktown? The L-1011 drove Lockheed out of the commercial market for good, while the DC-10 (with help from the MD-11) ultimately drove McDonnell-Douglas into oblivion. The L-1011 was by all accounts the superior plane, but it did not succeed commercially; while the DC-10 had a few problems that lead to its having a decidedly subpar safety record, and then the MD-11 did not meet expectations, as well as being outclassed by the A340 and 777. The DC-10 might have ultimately broke even financially (if you exclude the MD-11, which I am sure never did, and probably by enough to put the overall program in the red); while the L-1011 lost barnfulls of money. From that standpoint the DC-10 was probably the lesser disaster (unless you were a victim of one of its accidents.)


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5467 posts, RR: 13
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9425 times:

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 1):
Of course the DC-10 with 446 sold planes was more sucessful than the 250 build L1011 !

But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !



  

Safety wise and overall quality the L1011 was the stand out. However on an economical point of scale the DC-10 which led to the MD 11 won by a landslide. Also, the L1011 was supposed to fly earlier but, that little economic situation that was Rolls Royce made them the hare and the DC 10 the tortoise. Interestingly enough AA went to Lockheed with their requirements for a large sized bird that would be perfectly suited for their ORD LAX flights. Sure enough due to the time factor and Rolls Royce AA dropped Lockheed like a bad habit and went with the DC 10! Another should of, would of, could of in commercial aviation history.
Even with Eastern and TWA and DL going with the L1011 the die was cast.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9319 times:

Actually, the fact that the DC-10 and L-1011 were competing for the same market meant that both were doomed to commercial failure. There just was not enough demand at the time for two planes that size. And both of them drove their makers out of the market. By the time that there was enough demand, newer and more efficient planes filled the bill.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19290 posts, RR: 58
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9269 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 30):
The problem with the Tristar was that the basic design was very difficult to adapt to a longer range variant .
Space for additional fuel tanks and more engine thrust as required by a longer range version were available but the increased take-off weight could not be absorbed by the L-1011's existing undercarriage.

IIRC, there is also the fact that increasing the fan diameter for the #2 engine on the DC-10 was relatively straighforward, as was done for the DC-10-40's JT9D's and subsequently the MD-11, giving the #2 engine pipe the "wasp-waisted" appearance that it did. By contrast, the location of the L-1011's #2 fan in the tailcone made this a more complex prospect.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve D Hall



User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2079 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8754 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
IIRC, there is also the fact that increasing the fan diameter for the #2 engine on the DC-10 was relatively straighforward, as was done for the DC-10-40's JT9D's and subsequently the MD-11, giving the #2 engine pipe the "wasp-waisted" appearance that it did. By contrast, the location of the L-1011's #2 fan in the tailcone made this a more complex prospect.

The DC10 straight-through duct, adopted for the centre engine (#2) was specially designed to facilitate the installation of different power plants (JT9D series, CF6-6 series and CF6-50 series.)

Douglas (Later MCDonnell Douglas) left the engine selection to the customer. Even the RR RB211 was offered, but not selected.
Especially the difference in length between the competing engines could be easily corrected with this type of duct.

The Tristar's S-duct was modified for the larger diameter -524 version of the RB211 at the L-1011-200 and -500 series.

Delta converted six L-1011-1 aircraft to the new L-1011-250 version , incl. after production S-duct modification to allow installation of the higher thrust RB-211-524 engine.

[Edited 2012-05-23 08:43:12]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1988 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8693 times:

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 1):
But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !

I will agree the L-1011 was superior from a safety point of view, i.e., no cargo door problem, and the extra hydraulic system and the actual location of the plumbing of the hydraulic system, but to say it was a more comfortable airplane is simply not true. Both aircraft started out with spacious 8 across seating in coach, but the L-1011 had those "mini dividers" in the middle of the cabin, and those useless overhead bins that were designed for blankets.

As far as a financial success, the DC-10 was more successful. And as technologically advanced as the L-1011 is made out to be, it was designed with an undercarriage that could not handle much more weight, a stretch, so to speak, and a center engine compartment that could not accommodate any engine except the RB-211. A poor design if you ask me. I always preferred riding in the DC-10. What did both planes in, and especially the DC-10 based MD-11, was ETOPS, Once you could fly the oceans with two engines, three engine aircraft were doomed.


User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 37
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8662 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Versions of the L1011 were planned with engine options:

The L1011-8 would of been a prime DC10-30 competitor and had the CF6-50 and JT9D-20 as engine options along with an uprated RB.211 or possibly the RB.207 that never got built.

The original documentation for the L1011-500 also shows options for GE or PW powerplants, but this was dropped at some point?

The never built L1011-400 twin would of had the CF6 as the primary powerplant.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8568 times:

Why did neither Lockheed nor McDonnell Douglas develop twin engined variants of their tri-jets, especially once the 767 came on the market in the early eighties.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8498 times:

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 43):
Why did neither Lockheed nor McDonnell Douglas develop twin engined variants of their tri-jets, especially once the 767 came on the market in the early eighties.

First, that would be a new plane, as the structure supporting the tail engine is a massive part of the airframe, and shifts the CG considerably. Second, Lockheed had already pretty well given up on the civil market by the time the 767 appeared, and MD was never interested in doing an all-new plane after McDonnell took the reins.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8444 times:

I always wonder what McDonnell Douglas' engineers were thinking when they designed the DC-10's slat actuation system...

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac139/LisbonJet/305609_371826196196771_100001081807054_1021514_1687726312_n.jpg



TriStar
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2079 posts, RR: 14
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8455 times:

Here are two 1977 design studies for L-1011 twins. (called : TwinSTAR)

L-1011-600, a minimum-change two-engine L-1011, with L-1011 outer-wings and tail, the S-duct and nozzle for the 3rd engine being simply blanked off.

L-1011-600A, a better optimised twin derivative, with new active-control supercritical outer-wings and smaller elevators and new tail-cone. But a larger investment, of course.

Wing area 210 m², OEW 71 tonnes, ZFW 101,15 T, max. payload 30,1 T, MTOW 112,3 T.
Both for 174 to 200 pax over 2700 Nm
Fuel consumption 16% (-600) to 27% (-600A) per km/seat than a Boeing 727-200Adv.


See : http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1977/1977%20-%203002.html
And : http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1977/1977%20-%200801.html



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8239 times:

Quoting dash500 (Reply 45):
I always wonder what McDonnell Douglas' engineers were thinking when they designed the DC-10's slat actuation system...

In spite of it appearing to have been designed by a Rube Goldberg wannabee, it actually is a very efficient way to transmit coordinated motion over a distance. The slats all need to move together by slightly different amounts, and this mechanism accomplishes it with very little weight and one actuator. It is actually an extremely clever mechanism, and I cannot think of anything that would accomplish the task better with less weight.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8126 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 47):
It is actually an extremely clever mechanism, and I cannot think of anything that would accomplish the task better with less weight.

I believe that but if I'm not mistaken, they had to route hydraulic lines through the wing for the outboard slat drive mechanism assemblies. And that costed lives in the American Airlines' crash at Chicago-O'Hare Intl.



I think Lockheed's solution with torque shafts (driven by a Power Drive Unit located in the left wing root) and screw jacks was more simple and sturdier. And I'm not even talking about slat position locking mechanisms (the L-1011 had two redundant ways for that)...

Anyway, without weight considerations, all those cables and rods do seem a weird design and you gave me a laugh with your description  

[Edited 2012-05-23 16:34:27]


TriStar
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7885 times:

Quoting dash500 (Reply 45):
Quoting dash500 (Reply 45):


I always wonder what McDonnell Douglas' engineers were thinking when they designed the DC-10's slat actuation system...

I flew the MD80 for four years and simplicity in design was a Douglas trademark.



The joke used to be that 'DC' stood for 'direct cable'


There is a lot to be said for that philosophy, but there were some glaring deficiencies in the DC1O (and MD11) that cost a lot of lives.



I think the merger did them in, all the 'DC's' up to the -9 were oustanding. The engineering shortcuts started on the DC10 and continued with the -11.



A simple asymmetric slat lock out system would have saved AA in Chicago, regardless of all the other issues.



The MD11's engineering was really a disaster, it is hard to believe, in this day and age, with it's extremely significant stability issues that it could have been certified at all.


A great shame.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7515 times:

Quoting dash500 (Reply 48):

I believe that but if I'm not mistaken, they had to route hydraulic lines through the wing for the outboard slat drive mechanism assemblies. And that costed lives in the American Airlines' crash at Chicago-O'Hare Intl.

You are quite right in the routing of the hydraulic lines, which could have been routed so that the departing engine would not have taken them out, but weren't because of cost.

Quoting dash500 (Reply 48):
I think Lockheed's solution with torque shafts (driven by a Power Drive Unit located in the left wing root) and screw jacks was more simple and sturdier. And I'm not even talking about slat position locking mechanisms (the L-1011 had two redundant ways for that)...

I suspect you are right about this being simpler and sturdier, but I'm sure that it is also heavier. That is what struck me about the DC-10 design, how light it is. And of course you are right about the locking mechanism; the DC-10 could have easily had one but didn't.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 49):

There is a lot to be said for that philosophy, but there were some glaring deficiencies in the DC1O (and MD11) that cost a lot of lives.



I think the merger did them in, all the 'DC's' up to the -9 were oustanding. The engineering shortcuts started on the DC10 and continued with the -11.

I absolutely agree with this. I read an article in the New Yorker many years ago (maybe even the late 70's) about the design of the three jumbo jets; it went into the fact that Douglas, Lockheed, and Boeing had been in the commercial business long enough to know that when you design an airliner you make it as safe as you know how; the FAA requirements are only the starting point. McDonnell, on the other hand, had only built military planes, and there, once you have met specifications, you are done. McDonnell took over the reins after the merger (which was fairly early in the design of the DC-10), and their design philosophy was the controlling one. From what I have read, it is likely that none of the three high profile DC-10 crashes would have happened had it been designed by Douglas (pre-merger), Boeing, or Lockheed. In fact, I think the merger was about the worst thing that has happened in the commercial side of the aviation business, period. McDonnell was totally uninterested in investing in a new airframe; hence the succession of warmed-over designs that emerged, and they never did get back to the safety consciousness that all of the others adhered to. And when they bought Boeing with Boeing's money they nearly brought Boeing down.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7303 times:

One of the big stories on the L-1011's marketing was the bribery scandals that helped end Lockheed's place in passenger aircraft, forcing to stay in military aircraft market and eventually merge with Martin.

I liked the L-1011 in its design and looks over the DC-10. Two big DC-10 crashes in the 1970's (Turkish in 1974 and AA in 1979) were huge blows to the DC-10's credibility.



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7110 times:

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 51):

I liked the L-1011 in its design and looks over the DC-10. Two big DC-10 crashes in the 1970's (Turkish in 1974 and AA in 1979) were huge blows to the DC-10's credibility.

And had the same things happened to the L-1011 it is almost certain they would have landed safely. Certainly an engine falling off would not have caused the slats to retract, which is what caused the AA crash. The Turkish crash was caused by the floor buckling and taking out all the hydraulics; I believe that the hydraulic lines in the L-1011 were routed in a way that that would not have happened.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6972 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 52):
The Turkish crash was caused by the floor buckling and taking out all the hydraulics; I believe that the hydraulic lines in the L-1011 were routed in a way that that would not have happened.

I think it was the flight control cables...you don't typically run hydraulic tubes longitudinally in the floor but it's really common to run control cables there.

Tom.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6955 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):

I think it was the flight control cables...you don't typically run hydraulic tubes longitudinally in the floor but it's really common to run control cables there.

I thought it was the hydraulic lines; I did not think that the DC-10 used control cables. It certainly does not have manual reversion; the forces required would be too high, and if it did then UA232 wouldn't have happened. But I could be wrong.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6746 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
I did not think that the DC-10 used control cables.

It definitely had control cables (as did all the DC-x jets, the 707 through 767, and the A300/A310). The non-FBW large airliners all use irreversible hydraulic controls; the power comes from hydraulics but the command to the actuators comes through cables and pushrods. As a result, there are steel cables all over the place running from the flight deck out to all the hydraulic actuators.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
It certainly does not have manual reversion; the forces required would be too high, and if it did then UA232 wouldn't have happened. But I could be wrong.

You're correct that it doesn't have manual reversion but that's a completely separate thing from having control cables. With respect to the DC-10 floor collapse issue, you try to keep all runs (hydraulic or cable) as short as possible for weight reasons, but you don't have a choice but to run cables extensively inside the fuselage because they all have to end up at the flight deck in a non-FBW airplane. Hydraulics tend to just run from the pumps (usually the engines/struts and somewhere in the wing/body fairing or gear well) to the actuators (wings and tail, gear wells). This means you usually have one small line running forward to the nose gear and several big ones to the tail, and a ton going out on the wings.

The DC-10 wasn't exposed to this problem due to an inherent routing problem but, rather, it was the first to discover that cargo bay decompression loads on the floor of a widebody need to be treated differently than on a narrowbody due to the much larger floor area. This problem is why you have blowout panels by your ankles on all modern designs.

Tom.


User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6440 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 52):
The Turkish crash was caused by the floor buckling and taking out all the hydraulics; I believe that the hydraulic lines in the L-1011 were routed in a way that that would not have happened.

Actually it was the cargo loading door that wasn't properly locked, a flaw in the design in the locking mechanism. The rapid depressurization in turn caused the floor to buckle and the flight-control lines to break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981#Cause

[Edited 2012-05-26 10:43:43]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlinemark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6083 times:

neither of these aircrafts were very successful, but in terms of sales, the DC10 obviously won. The L1011 while perhaps more advanced than the DC10, never really stood a chance to be successful. with the amount of money that Lockheed pumped into this program and into the C5A, along with RR's bankruptcy, any real chance of making a more advanced L1011 went out the window. In addition to that, the inability to increase the weight of the L1011 without a costly redesign of the landing gear, made the DC10-30 more appealing to airlines who wanted a long range tri jet, and cost them potential sales. The lack of a family of aircrafts also contributed to this as well. The DC-8 and DC-9 gave Douglas and then MCD a family of aircrafts to compliment the later DC10 line as well as the MD80. Lockheed only had the L1011 to offer with a turbo prop to preceed it. A twin L1011 would have made things interesting..

The DC10 found better success, even more so in the after markets as a freighter, where the L1011 did not. The tri jet in general became obsolete with A300/ A310 and 767, and this, along with the MD11s short fall in performance, put an end to MCD. Even today, twins are replacing quads at a very rapid pace, leaving quads for VLA such as the 747 and A380.

I had the chance to fly on both on several occasions, and I felt that both aircrafts were a pleasure to fly on. ( from a passengers point of view). It is still an awesome sight to watch a FedEx DC10 come in for a landing with its high angle of attack. Sure do miss those trijets that were so dominant back in the 80s!!


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2895 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5895 times:

Are there any DC-10 parts still in use in the C-17? The cockpit areas are similar, and the DC-10 forward section was used on the forerunner to the C-17, the YC-15

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Oliver Brunke


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michel Van Bokhoven




The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5680 times:

If we compare the comparable, Lockheed sold 199 L-1011-1/-100-/200s against 138 DC-10-10/-15s. The DC-10-30 was another league in which Lockheed was never able to play. And Douglas did it since early 70s.

[Edited 2012-05-27 12:52:05]


TriStar
User currently offlineB757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 395 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

Quoting dash500 (Reply 45):
I always wonder what McDonnell Douglas' engineers were thinking when they designed the DC-10's slat actuation system...

Like the previous genereations of Douglas aircraft it had the highly reliable Fly By Wire system, it's just that Douglas used 7 x 19 wire!  


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3090 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 21):
A lot of that stuff in the brochure is fluff. Two big advantages that the L-1011 had were a superior autopilot and DLC

And those really cool passenger doors, lowering down from the roof of the plane and locking, it was my favorite thing about riding the L-1011 from a passenger standpoint, oh and the incredible ride and feel of the aircraft, take offs and landings!



Rule number One, NEVER underestimate the other guys lack of class - In honor of Mayor - Rob Ford
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24669 posts, RR: 22
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5330 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 61):
Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 21):
A lot of that stuff in the brochure is fluff. Two big advantages that the L-1011 had were a superior autopilot and DLC

And those really cool passenger doors, lowering down from the roof of the plane and locking, it was my favorite thing about riding the L-1011 from a passenger standpoint,

Same type of doors were used on the DC-10 and MD-11, also on the 767 which I think is the only Boeing type to use the upward-opening doors.


User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5261 times:

With the difference that all type A doors on the L-1011 were provided with an electrical opening/closing system and had big titanium springs for emergency/mechanical opening instead of CO2 bottles for opening assistance.

Opening the L-1011 doors with passengers nearby was a funny exercise. Especially if one didn't advice them. The noisy and inwards (before going up) opening door would often scare them!



TriStar
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3438 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

Well as said before, the DC-10 has a better sales record, but the L-1011 has a better safety record.


This may go off the subject a little, but both these airliners, where built like tanks. As much as I love the Boeing 747, I would say that these two planes, had a stronger more rigid airframe than a 747, thank to the high landing and take off cycle time that was design for, remember, the DC-10 and L-1011, was design to fly routes the 727s would normally fly.

I remember both of these jets, coming into LAX from the from the southern part of the US, in the after noon, thank to DL and AA. Also, I have seen both of them come into LAX from different cities in Hawaii.


Now my favorite first gen wide body, will always be the Boeing 747, but these two trijets will have a place in my heart.
Also, both these big trijets sound great at taxi, in the L-1011 case, start up, and when they throttle up for take off, you want to lissen up!


User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4736 times:

Despite not having the biggest passenger windows in the market, one thing I liked in the L-1011 was that, due to its fuselage construction, the thickness of the sidewalls was much less and you had better vision to the outside (I mean, you didn't have to put your head inside a "hole" 5/6 cm deep made by the window panels to get closer to the window or you didn't have a big gap between the plastic cover and the acrylic window.. That's one thing I don't like in the B747/B777 and A380 windows and maybe the DC-10 also (but I can't remember properly when I flew it a long time ago).


TriStar
User currently offlineZaphodB From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4649 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 61):
And those really cool passenger doors, lowering down from the roof of the plane and locking, it was my favorite thing about riding the L-1011 from a passenger standpoint, oh and the incredible ride and feel of the aircraft, take offs and landings!

And before they put the center overhead bins in it had a very cool 70's sci-fi look to the cabin.
Even when they were old and tatty DLs 1011s felt rock solid and by today' standard's the Y seating was very comfortable. I have very fond memories of TATL crossings and especially ATL-FLL runs on those old warhorses. They may not be missed by the accountants but they are by me ... same for the VC10.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3152 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

[quote=DocLig.htning,reply=17][/qamaxuote]
Could not agree more, and I still have Betamax working and running at home, great quality product.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24669 posts, RR: 22
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4392 times:

Quoting dash500 (Reply 65):
That's one thing I don't like in the B747/B777 and A380 windows and maybe the DC-10 also (but I can't remember properly when I flew it a long time ago).

No, the DC-10 (and MD-11) don't have that issue. They have the biggest windows of any of the early widebodies. I think they're about 25% larger than L-1011 windows and also somewhat larger than 747 windows.


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3090 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting ZaphodB (Reply 66):
And before they put the center overhead bins in it had a very cool 70's sci-fi look to the cabin.
Even when they were old and tatty DLs 1011s felt rock solid and by today' standard's the Y seating was very comfortable. I have very fond memories of TATL crossings and especially ATL-FLL runs on those old warhorses. They may not be missed by the accountants but they are by me ...

When I lived in Hawaii from Jun 93 - Aug 95, I worked for the largest locally owned travel agency chain in the state, I was their VIP/INTL agent, so my sales were so far ahead of everyone in the company of 9 offices (which sold mainly Inter Island Coupons by bulk, Inter-Island packages and Vegas packages). DL awarded the largest dollar produceing agent in our company 2 free passes anywhere in the USA every quarter of the year, coach but upgradeable on day of departure with a love note in your PNR from the sales rep. Anyway, point was DL was exclusively L-1011's flying LAX, and DFW & ATL were 500 series. Needless to say I flew a ton of L-1011's on DL alone, not to mention HA, EA, TW to name a few. Loved the plane, not so much in the last row, in the middle section of 5 seats, under the center engine intake, in a non-reclining seat for nearly 6 hours. But most of the time I got to ride in F class and loved the great ride up front.



Rule number One, NEVER underestimate the other guys lack of class - In honor of Mayor - Rob Ford
User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4210 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 68):
No, the DC-10 (and MD-11) don't have that issue. They have the biggest windows of any of the early widebodies. I think they're about 25% larger than L-1011 windows and also somewhat larger than 747 windows.

I searched for pictures and those aircraft seem to have that issue (I was not talking about size). The sidewalls seem to be pretty thick and there is a huge gap between the external and internal layers of the window:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM--...McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11/0738798/L/

It is not comparable with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRbh6d8vzC4

As you can see in the following photo, the fuselage frames were much thinner at windows level (3" deep) than on the top or bellow (6" deep):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Royal...ed-L-1011-385-3-TriStar/0182545/L/

And due to that, despite having a slightly smaller diameter than the DC-10, the L-1011 cabin was actually wider inside! This was a nice feature of the L-1011!

How I wish Carl Yelverton (474218) was still with us  Smile

[Edited 2012-05-29 03:29:02]


TriStar
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Flight International's archives contain a 1973 article about the Twin-Ten. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1973/1973%20-%201582.html

Here is a comparison table from the article, although the formatting will be lacking.

DC-10 Twin A300B4
MTOW 153,770kg 150,330kg
MLW 146,513kg 133,000kg
OWE 94,800kg 86,790kg
Max payload 37,986kg 35,210kg
Max fuel 61,000kg 45,400kg
Length 51.2m 53.57m
Span 49.16m 44.84m
Height 17.56m 16.53m
Fuse dia 5.95m 5.64m
Wing area 335.4m^2 260m^2
Eng 2 x CF6-50C 2 x CF6-50C
or 2 x JT9D-59


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...
What Was The Longest Dc-10 Route Ever? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 21:58:52 by KDTWFlyer
Dueling Trijets: Carriers Using DC-10 & L-1011 posted Wed Jan 30 2008 17:45:00 by FlagshipAZ
Delta's Experience: DC-10 Vs L-1011 posted Sat Dec 22 2007 05:06:08 by CF-CPI
What Happened To NW's DC-10 Engineers? posted Tue Jan 9 2007 03:03:39 by Falstaff
DC-10 Or A330? posted Fri Jan 20 2006 17:50:40 by Burberry753
What Routes Did Continental's DC-10's Run? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 23:43:05 by COEWR2587
What Happened To JO's DC-10-40 Fleet? posted Fri Dec 3 2004 01:43:00 by Ktachiya
DEN DC-10 Or MD-11 Flights? posted Tue Oct 12 2004 00:42:15 by AirEMS
What's The White-tail DC-10 / MD11 @ ZRH posted Sun Jun 8 2003 08:59:01 by Rw774477
Who Was Bigger At DFW American Or Braniff? posted Sun Apr 14 2002 23:02:34 by DETA737