Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
L-1011 With New Engines?!  
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 25201 times:

Besides being an aviation geek I am also a full-time space nerd  

Just now I was reading an article on SpaceflightNow concerning an upcoming launch of Orbital Sciences's Pegasus rocket that is launched from a modified L-1011. One tidbit in this article got my attention:

Link: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/pegasus/nustar/takeoff/
"Stargazer" is flying this mission with three new, fuel-efficient engines on the Lockheed TriStar aircraft originally built in the 1960s and purchased from Air Canada for conversion into the Pegasus launcher.

So, what, are these just "new"/mint RB211's? Or are these really new engines eg. a diffrerent type?! I can not believe the latter as this would mean certification, right?


Live From Amsterdam!
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 25120 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Thread starter):
I can not believe the latter as this would mean certification, right?

I think the aircraft will be registered as experimental anyway, so putting some new engines on it isn't going to make any difference..



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlinevegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 25120 times:

The article was referring to the rockets engines, not the planes.

The rocket specializes in carrying satellites and experiments that weigh up to 1,000 pounds into low-Earth orbit. With the body of an oversize model rocket and tail of an airplane, the Pegasus has three solid-fuel rocket motors and a rather unique and economical way of lifting off.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 25017 times:

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 1):
I think the aircraft will be registered as experimental anyway, so putting some new engines on it isn't going to make any difference..

That would make sense I guess. My next question would be; what type of engines? Newer version of the RB211?

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 2):
The article was referring to the rockets engines, not the planes.

Read the text I posted again;

"Stargazer" is flying this mission with three new, fuel-efficient engines on the Lockheed TriStar aircraft originally built in the 1960s and purchased from Air Canada for conversion into the Pegasus launcher.

Stargazer is the Tristar, this text is not about the Pegasus rocket.

[Edited 2012-06-06 07:43:45]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 24954 times:

It dates from the 1970s not the 60s!

User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1356 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 24532 times:

It is mentioned on Spaceflightnow too - http://spaceflightnow.com/pegasus/nustar/tour/ . Lots of photos of the L-1011 there.

User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 24516 times:

"Stargazer" was recently upgraded to a -200 standard, which means it now has RB211-524B engines instead of RB211-22B.

This is because no MRO shop in the world works with the RB211-22B anymore and Orbital had to comply with the AD's.



TriStar
User currently offlinetjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 24257 times:

Looks like N140SC will be heading to the Marshall Islands after a stop at Hickam AFB in Hawaii:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N140SC



Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2181 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 23706 times:

Quoting dash500 (Reply 6):
"Stargazer" was recently upgraded to a -200 standard, which means it now has RB211-524B engines instead of RB211-22B.

  

Early model L1011s (-1s and -100s primarily) had RB211-22B engines. Lockheed then produced the -200 model that used the upgraded RB211-524B engines. Lockheed also put out an upgrade kit that allowed early -1s and -100s to be upgraded to the same RB211-524B engins. The -1s and -100s that were upgraded were redisgnated as the -250 model.

RR stopped supporting the RB211-22B a number of years ago. So any remaining -1s/-100s have been either retired or upgraded to the -250 standard, such as Orbital's bird.


User currently offlineVasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 3849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 21644 times:

Made me realise how I miss seeing the L1011...  

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 21245 times:

Was this engine a close relative to the 757 engine?

User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3970 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 20818 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 10):
Was this engine a close relative to the 757 engine?

Well except for the name, no.

The RB211-535 on the B757 had a similar core to the -524, but everything else was different!
It always amazed me that two similar engines could have some many differences.

The RB211-524 was very similar to the -22B. It had an uprated core with an extra stage, and had about 10 pc better fuel consumption and worked much better, but on the outside it was nearly identical. All the components looked exactly the same, but had different pt nbrs. You could fit a -22B Fuel control to a -524, but it didn't work!! (been there).

To change a -22B to a -524 on the Tristar was simple. About two days work changing air system components like sensors and control valves, then an engine change and new engine instruments.


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12274 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 20818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I saw it just over a year ago at Mojave.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 20557 times:

I never got to fly on the L1011, I did many trips on the DC10s that SAS had, the LA route was a nice route. I actually did most flying in the 80s and 90s, have stayed close to home in the last 10 years. In those days air travel was different. It was more expensive and not as common as today.

User currently offlineboeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15754 times:

I feel lucky I actually got to work on an L10 at one point in my life a few years ago! Was a great experience!

User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5839 times:

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 2):
The article was referring to the rockets engines, not the planes.

hahaha, im pretty sure no one will ever refer to a rocket engine as "fuel efficient". Its the L1011 they are talking about  


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6791 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 5179 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
It dates from the 1970s not the 60s!

The L-1011 was mostly designed in the '60's; it first flew in November 1970 and entered service in 1972. To me that makes it a '60's design.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 5128 times:

Imagine a L1011 with genX engines and a cfrp wing etc It would be a decent ETOPS free aircraft? Or imagine a 752 weight trimmed, new wing and with current engines.

I don't think modern aircraft or that much better, put more modern infrastructure on historical aircraft and they will give you a run for the money.


User currently offlinedash500 From Portugal, joined May 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4726 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 15):
hahaha, im pretty sure no one will ever refer to a rocket engine as "fuel efficient". Its the L1011 they are talking about  

Yes, they are talking about the L10's engines. However it was not fuel efficiency that made Orbital change its engines. The true reason was given by me earlier on this thread. For an airplane that flies so rarely, fuel efficiency is certainly not a problem.

As a curiosity, Stargazer's previous RB211-22B engines were already "overclocked" engines tuned to give a 10% increase in power for its special missions.



TriStar
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2181 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4395 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Thread starter):
"Stargazer" is flying this mission with three new, fuel-efficient engines on the Lockheed TriStar aircraft originally built in the 1960s and purchased from Air Canada for conversion into the Pegasus launcher.

So, what, are these just "new"/mint RB211's?

I wonder that myself - did RR indeed build new RB211-524Bs? I am sure there are plenty of spare RB211-524Bs around the world from all of the L1011-250s and L1011-500s that have retired over the past ten years.


User currently offlinevegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

My bad..kind of a poorly written sentence though... Either way a cool project and a neat way to launch the rocket.

User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3830 times:

They have cleaned that Tristar up quite a bit. That landing gear looks brand new.

There must be loads of RB211 engines laying idle around the world. But are there any passenger Tristars still flying?


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

For what its worth, near the end of the L1011 production run Lockheed had studied updating the L1011 series and it included using the then "new" GE CF6-80 series engines. I remember reading about this (with artists renderings) in Aviation Week & Space Technology. Who knows what might have been?

User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2231 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3541 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
The L-1011 was mostly designed in the '60's; it first flew in November 1970 and entered service in 1972. To me that makes it a '60's design.

Indeed. The first actual hull was built in 1969


User currently offlinechieft From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting babybus (Reply 21):
But are there any passenger Tristars still flying?

I think Euroatlantic still operates one.



Aircraft are marginal costs with wings.
25 Vasu : I think they replaced that one with a 767 some time back... Even Luzair no longer operates any, as far as I know.
26 SEPilot : Does Lockheed still support the L-1011? I thought I read somewhere that they don't.
27 sweair : In its time it was a very good airplane, but other circumstances ended it too soon. One of my favorite airframes, a beauty!
28 Revelation : Beautiful photo, Steve, but kinda highlights the shortish wing span that Lockheed gave her, which made it difficult for her to expand to longer route
29 Post contains links maxpower1954 : Yes, they do. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products.html
30 Revelation : Indeed, the UK RAF still operate the L-1011 so there is at least some critical mass to keep the support team around. Once that winds down, there will
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...
New 737 With Special Engines posted Mon Feb 11 2002 23:21:28 by Racko
L-1011 With 4 Engines? posted Thu Aug 19 1999 01:02:54 by CYYC
EZE Layout With New Terminal posted Tue Apr 10 2012 04:36:59 by treeny
777-200ER With GE Engines, Available posted Wed Mar 21 2012 13:00:23 by Fyano773
First Boeing 787 With Genx Engines posted Thu Feb 16 2012 14:23:38 by OD-BWH
LAN To Strengthen The LIM Hub With New Frequencies posted Tue Jan 31 2012 18:31:02 by SCL767
BHX An 'extra London Airport' With New HSR Link? posted Tue Jan 10 2012 06:05:06 by BMIFlyer
First Delta 772ER With New Flat Bed Seats posted Fri Dec 24 2010 20:59:46 by dl767captain
"Continental" Comes Up With A New Fee posted Tue Dec 14 2010 06:22:46 by Northwest727