Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tristar Or DC10?  
User currently offlineViscount From Gibraltar, joined Dec 1999, 112 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

If there are any pilots out there who have flown both Tristars and DC10s, I'd like to know which you prefer and in your opinion which is the better of the two aircraft?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3668 times:

I would select the L-1011. Why, is because it is built better with 4 hydraulic systems vs. 3 on the DC-10.
Lockheed did it's homework when they designed and built this plane, they didn't cut corners like MD did with the DC-10. That is why they are now part of Boeing, the 3 hydraulic systems on the DC-10 are side-by-side next to each other and are in sections where a malfunction could sever them like the United Sioux City crash and the May 1979 American Airlines disaster at O' Hare when the engine tore off the wing severing the hydraulic lines on that wing causing it to roll over and crash. The L-1011's 4 hydraulic lines are in different sections of the plane where there won't be any kind of malfunction. That is why it has had an excellent safety record!!! Plus, I would fly a Rolls Royce powered plane over a GE!!!


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

I would select the L-1011. Why, is because it is built better with 4 hydraulic systems vs. 3 on the DC-10.
Lockheed did it's homework when they designed and built this plane, they didn't cut corners like MD did with the DC-10. That is why they are now part of Boeing, the 3 hydraulic systems on the DC-10 are side-by-side next to each other and are in sections where a malfunction could sever them like the United Sioux City crash and the May 1979 American Airlines disaster at O' Hare when the engine tore off the wing severing the hydraulic lines on that wing causing it to roll over and crash. The L-1011's 4 hydraulic lines are in different sections of the plane where there won't be any kind of malfunction. That is why it has had an excellent safety record!!! Plus, I would fly a Rolls Royce powered plane over a GE!!!


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

I'm not a pilot, but have been told that the TriStar is regarded as significantly more technically advanced than the DC-10.
Can anyone Confim/Deny this?


User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4320 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

The Tristar looks cuter but most DC-10s still fly in frontline service while only 100 of 250 L-1011s are still in service. So economically the L-1011 appears to be a pretty outdated plane.


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineHypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

Tedski said that he preferred the RR engines over GE. Why is that?

Is it just a personal preference or experience? Is one more reliable than the other?

I'm not nagging or picking, I'm genuinely curious.


User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3640 times:

The L-1011's technical advances have also proven to be its downfall. While the DC-10 and L-1011 cost about the same to fly in terms of fuel consumption, the L-1011 has always cost more to maintain. The L-1011 also had a higher initial purchase price than the DC-10.

The Tristar is anything but outdated. It was Stage III compliant 25 years before it became mandatory. Its fuel consumption is actually slightly less than the DC-10 and its quadruple-redundant hydraulic system is far superior to the DC-10. All that technology in 1970's form is expensive and requires more downtime to maintain. The early model RB211s have also been a long time maintenance problem.


User currently offlineAC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

The L1011 was a better airplane. The safety record shows that. As far as why there are more DC10's still around, that is partly because there were more built, and partly because spare parts are easier to come by. Part of the reason there were more DC10's built is because the development program for the L1011 was longer, and that delayed production so that Douglas got the business before Lockheed was finished designing. Long range versions of the Tristar were delayed ever later than the DC10's long range versions, so again Lockheed wasn't quick enough to get the market, despite its having a superior airplane. The L1011 production line also was shut down before the DC10 line, somewhat due to Lockheed giving up as it only had the L1011 in civilian production, so it just left the market because it didn't have enough market share.

By all counts the L1011 was more advanced, better designed, and safer than the DC10.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

I think Rolls Royce engines are of better quality and reliability. Why do you think the newest A340-500 & 600 are having them? Nothing personal against GE, they make good engines too.

User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Today's RR engines are as reliable as they come. The early RB211s on the Tristar were anything but. The development of the RB211 was delayed so often that it not only caused Lockheed to lose orders, it also led to a bailout of RR by the British government.

In the early days of L-1011 service the joke in the industry was that the Tristar was "the world's best twin". They became known at Eastern as "L-Ten-Lemons". Over time the bugs were worked out of the engines and the Tristar went on to a successful and very safe career. By then it was too late. The DC-10 had quickly passed the L-1011 in sales. Not only that, a little-known European consortium was playing around with Lockheed's idea of a "Jumbo Twin". The rest is history.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

There was a book published in the mid-1970's (after the 1974 Turkish DC-10 crash near Paris) titled "Destination Disaster" and it had a very detailed accounting of the great DC10/L1011 war of the era. I seem to recall that the L1011 had more advanced flight controls, and better system redundancy, particularly the hydraulics with 4 systems to the DC10's 3.

Great book, if you can find it at the library, or a secondhand store..


User currently offlineMCOtoATL From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 474 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

Let me start by saying that I am not a pilot, but I read a great book entitled, "Frequent Flyer," by Bob Reiss. The author spends several days traveling on a Delta L-1011 and goes into great detail about the plane, how it was built, the battle between Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, as well as other interesting facts about the plane. He said that pilots love the L-1011 because of it was built around the pilot. The book is out of print, but Amazon.Com was able to find a copy of it. For the aviation buff, it is an awesome book. It talks a lot about the L-1011 and DC-10.

User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (14 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

The reason why Lockheed got out of the civilian airliner business was that they were too good at what they did, so good to the point that there wasn't any money in it for them. Airliners have slim profit margins, sometimes none at all. Essentially, they are cattle cars for the masses. So to compete in the airliner game, you must adopt the industry mantra: make them reasonably reliable, make them reasonably simple, and make them reasonably cheap. And sell, sell, sell. Make a dollar profit on each one, and sell a million. When they crash, make the appropriate adjustments on the next batch.
Historically, Lockheed products didn't fit that mold. They made them ultra realiable, they made them ultra advanced, and they made the adjustments before they crashed. As a result, they didn't make them cheap. Such as airliners are, they needn't be built by a firm like Lockheed whose engineering talent was wasted on such cattle cars. Especially so considering how they were so good at making expensive, exotic, technical wonders for the military in limited quantities. And that's where the money is, anyway. So that is where they are now. In fact, they are the prime contractor chosen by NASA to produce the Venturestar, the first reusable space plane. http://www.venturestar.com
Having Lockheed make airliners, was akin to having Ferrari make trucks. Ferrari trucks would drive great, look spectacular, but they would be more expensive to produce and maintain. Ferrari could never sell enough of them to make any money. That's what happend to the the L-1011 we all love. Regrettable as it was. So, GM makes trucks. Boeing and Airbus make airliners. Ferrari makes sportscars. And Lockheed makes space planes. There is order in the universe.

As far as engines are concerned, a GE engine, should be the mirror image of a Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engine. There should be nothing that could account for any significant difference in reliability betwen them. The physics is the same for either company. The engineering is the same. The tolerances are the same. The materials are the same. And the engineers, who design these things, are also the same. They went to the same universities, earned the same degrees, and learned the very same facts of life. And I assume their pay is also somewhat the same.
Having said all that however, let me say I would prefer a plane powered by Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engines over a GE powered one. But I have nothing against General Electric. They made my toaster, my refrigerator, my dishwasher, and they made the can opener I use to remove the lids from the cat food cans. And whenever I buy lightbulbs, I can assure you, the choice is clear. They know more about making light bulbs than anybody else.



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3568 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GEs dont power the A340-500/600 because of their own choice. I dont know the details, but they pulled out of developing an engine for that aircraft. It was not an Airbus choice. Surely from a sales point of view, Airbus would love to offer all three manufacturers.

Sammy


User currently offlineTristar86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

I have been on both and I prefer the (Delta) L1011. For 1 the service on Delta was excellent (Compaired to the Northworst DC-10). And 2 I am tall and I could stand op in my seat and not hit my head with their 9 ft cealings. But that was also my only complaint. No overhead bins for the aisle seats.

User currently offlineCSA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Well you guys have said it all, I agree with you!!!
The TriStar is as reliable as an old volvo car, you just know that even if it's a 20 year old machine it will never cause you any problems, beleave me I have been working on a L-1011 and have an old volvo too...

But there is one thing to add and that is that the there is one modification on the DC10-series 40, it is powered by Pratt&Whitney JT9Ds.

I have to tell you that RRs and PWs are powering the safest airliners of the world according to the records I have and to my preferences.

RR- RB211s power the TriStar and
Pratt&Whitney JT8Ds power the MD-80s.
If you aske me I love those two planes.
The DC-10 I would only fly with the 40 (PW Power) series, have no trust in GE's.


User currently offlineSanjeev-M From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3547 times:


The L1011 v/s DC10 war continues, many years after! Shows the impact both the aircraft still have.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that the L1011 was always a superior aircraft to the DC10 in many ways, and loved by passengers and pilots alike. The DC10, however, has suffered from many crashes, an unfortunate fact which continues on the DC10 successor, the MD11. This year alone there were three MD11 crashes ...the Swissair off New York, the China Airlines in HKG and the FedEx at Manila.
In retrospect, Lockheed's biggest blunder was to put all its Eggs - or Engines - in one basket. By signing up an exclusive deal with RR, they were hit with RR's problems right at the start, when the DC10 beat them with more sales. Unfortunately
Lockheed did not have the resolve or the resources to 'revamp' the L1011 (like the MD11) and if they had done so, the new aircraft would have given the A340 and 777 a run for their money!

Well, there are about 190 TriStars still flying today and will for many years to come. Even after the last are retired, the L1011 will remain in fond memory.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

Don't forget the recent crash of that UTA DC-10 in Guatamala that was used by Cubana. Don't know if it was pilot error or mechanical. L-1011 is the best for safety and reliability!!!! What would be nice if Lockheed and Boeing teamed up and they came up with a high perfomance supersonic jetliner to beat or replace Concorde and compete against Airbus.

User currently offlineMas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

Growing up in the UK and flying to Malaysia every three months on British Airways' L1011 TriStar 200 service during the 1980s...the TriStar was a superb aircraft. BA's route to Kuala Lumpur was probably one of its longest for the TriStar taking up to 19 flying hours via Bahrain and Bangkok...but the flights were always fantastically smooth...even when landing in tropical rainstorms at KUL....shame the 747-400s have now pretty much taken over all long-haul Asian flights. Then again the 747-400s now only take 14 hours non-stop.


User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

With regard to the statement:

"Unfortunately Lockheed did not have the resolve or the resources to 'revamp' the L1011 (like the MD11) and if they had done so, the new aircraft would have given the A340 and 777 a run for their money!"

1. I thought that the L-1011 was canned long before the MD-11, A340, and 777 were designed let alone metal cut.

and

2. The only projects Lockheed promoted as far as I am aware were the same size or smaller than the -500. The ones I am interested in at the moment are the -600 or the -600A (so called "Bistar") as a modelling project in 1:144.

If anyone has any info on a larger L-1011 project (such as a "Quarterstar" or "Quadstar"??) by all means tell me about it as I think it too would make a great modelling project in 1:144!

Regards

Rob



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
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...
UA ORD-IAD 1994 Tristar Or DC-10? posted Tue Aug 31 2004 04:08:34 by Whiskeyhotel
Tristar And DC10 Pilots...... posted Mon Oct 23 2000 14:34:58 by Viscount
L1011 Or DC10? posted Tue Nov 30 1999 17:12:41 by PANAMAN
MD11 Or DC10? posted Mon May 24 1999 02:17:30 by Cor_18
DC10 Or MD11? posted Wed Dec 5 2007 12:25:10 by FraT
Was A DC10 (or Heavy) At GDT Way Back? posted Thu Apr 7 2005 17:25:20 by Manu
What's Bigger, DC10 Or 777? posted Tue May 29 2001 08:13:38 by SJCguy
Is DC10 He Or She? posted Sun Apr 1 2001 09:06:13 by Salsa
DC3 Dakota Or Similar Over Edinburgh 15/06 posted Sun Jun 15 2008 06:05:11 by Sandyb123
Right Or Wrong To Let A UM Pax Wait In Staff Room? posted Fri Jun 13 2008 12:46:58 by LH4116